Bakery Algorithm - Proof

OS Winter 06

Bakery algorithm of Lamport

 Critical section algorithm for any n>1  Each time a process is requesting an
entry to CS, assign it a ticket which is
Unique and monotonically increasing

 Let the process into CS in the order of

their numbers

OS Winter 03

Choosing a ticket
Shared : int number[ n ]; boolean choosing [n];
number [i ] ! max( number[0], number [1], - number [ n  1])  1;

Does not guarantee uniqueness! Use process Ids:

( nu ber[ j ], j ) (nu ber[i ], i )

Process need to know that somebody perhaps chose a smaller number:
choosing[i ] ! true; nu ber[i ] ! max(nu ber[0], nu ber[1], - nu ber[n  1])  1; choosing[i ] ! false;
OS Winter 03

Bakery algorithm for n processes

Process Pi do { choosing[i ] ! true; number[i ] ! max(number[0], number[1],- number[n  1])  1; choosing[i ] ! false; for ( j ! 0; j n; j   ) { while(choosing[ j ]); while(( number[ j ]! ! 0) & &((number[ j ], j ) (number[i ], i ))); } critical section number[i ] ! 0; remainder section } while(1)
OS Winter 03

Bakery algorithm for n processes

R
Process Pi do { choosing[i ] ! true; T D number[i ] ! max(number[0], number[1],- number[n  1])  1; choosing[i ] ! false; for ( j ! 0; j n; j   ) { T-D while(choosing[ j ]); while(( number[ j ]! ! 0) & &((number[ j ], j ) (number[i ], i ))); } C critical section number[i ] ! 0; E remainder section } while(1)
OS Winter 03

Structure of the algorithm

 R code prior to using Bakery algorithm  T creating of a ticket and awaiting for
permission to enter critical section
D creation of a number (first part of a ticket) T-D awaiting for the permission to enter critical section

 C critical section itself  E code executed upon exit from critical

section
OS Winter 03

Basic Lemma
Lemma 1:
For any i { j , i
i

is in C and

is in C (T - D), then

(nu ber [i ], i ) ( nu ber [ j ], j )

OS Winter 03

Lemma 1 - proof
 Denote s time point where lemmas conditions
hold  At time s, P is in C (critical section) i
number[i] has been selected and still exists number[j] has been selected and still exists Exist time point t1<s, where P performs a check i (choosing[j]==0) and passes it Exists time point t2, t1<t2<s, where P performs a i check (number[j]!=0) and (number[i],i)<(number[j],j)
OS Winter 03

Lemma 1 proof (cont)

 Since at time t1 exists (choosing[j]==0)
one of the following has to be true
CASE A: number[j] was chosen after time t1 and before time s CASE B: number[j] was chosen before t1

OS Winter 03

Lemma 1 proof CASE A

 Since at time t1
checks for permission to enter critical section, computation of number[i] was computed before that and persists until s  Thus, at the time j starts to compute its number[j], it has to take into account of max value of number[i]. So it creates a value which is greater then number[i] at least by 1, and it persists until time s  That is (number[i],i)<(number[j],j) at time s
OS Winter 03

i already

Lemma 1 proof CASE B

 Both number[i] and number[j] were computed
before t1, thus also before time t2 and persisted until s  At time t2 Pi performed check (number[j]!=0) & (number[j],j)<(number[i],i), which failed, since P is in C at time s i  number[j] was chosen before t2 and persisted, thus first part of the check could not fail, also i and j are different, so  (number[i],i)<(number[j],j) at time s
OS Winter 03

Lemmata 2,3,4
 Lemma 2 mutual exclusion:
Bakery Algorithm satisfies mutual exclusion property

 Lemma 3 progress
Bakery Algorithm guarantees progress

 Lemma 4 fairness
Bakery Algorithm guarantees lockoutfreedom
OS Winter 03

Lemma 2 Proof
 Assume in contradiction that there are two
different processes that have entered critical section  Then conditions of Lemma 1 are true for both processes simmetrically that is (number[i],i)<(number[j],j]) and (number[j],j)<(number[i],i) : contradiction  We conclude that mutual exclusion is satisfied

OS Winter 03

Lemma 3 Proof
 Suppose progress is not guaranteed  Then eventually a point is reached after which
all processes are in T or R  By the code, all the processes in T eventually complete D and reach T-D  Then the process with the lowest (number,ID) pair is not blocked from reaching C, that is enters critical section  We conclude that Bakery algorithm satisfies Progress
OS Winter 03

Lemma 4 Proof
 Consider a particular process     
never reaches C The process eventually completes D and reaches T-D After that any new process that enters D perceives number[i] and chooses a higher number Thus, since P does not reach C, none of these new i processes reach C either But by Lemma 3 there must be continuing progress, that is infinitely many entries to C Contradiction: P blocks the entry to C i
OS Winter 03

Pi in T and suppose it

Remark on Fairness
 A process that obtained a ticket (number[k],k)
will wait at most for (n-1) turns, when other processes will enter the critical section  For example if all the processes obtained their tickets at the same time they will look like (q,1),(q,2)(q,n) In which case process n will wait for processes 1 n 1 to complete the critical section

OS Winter 03

Bibliography
 Nancy Ann Lynch, Distributed
Algorithms, JMC 243.9 LY53  Leslie Lamport A new solution of Dijkstras concurrent programming problem Communications of the ACM 17(8):453-455, 1974
OS Winter 03

Hardware primitives
 Elementary building blocks capable of
performing certain steps atomically
Should be universal to allow for solving versatile synchronization problems

 Numerous such primitives were

identified:
Test-and-set Fetch-and-add Compare-and-swap
OS Winter 03

Test-and-Set (TS)
boolean test-and-set(boolean &lock) { temp=lock; lock=TRUE; return temp; } reset(boolean &lock) { lock=FALSE; }
OS Winter 03

Critical section using TS

Shared boolean lock, initially FALSE do { while(test-and-set(&lock)); critical section; Check yourself! reset(&lock); Is mutual exclusion reminder section; satisfied? } while(1); Is progress satisfied? Is fairness satisfied?
OS Winter 03

Discussion
 Satisfies Mutual Exclusion and Progress  Does not satisfies Fairness  Provides exclusion among unbounded
number of processes
Process IDs and number are unknown

 Busy waiting
Burning CPU cycles while being blocked

OS Winter 03

Fetch-and-Add (FAA)
s: shared, a: local int FAA(int &s, int a) { temp=s; s=s+a; return temp; FAA can be used } as a ticket machine
OS Winter 03

Critical section using FAA

Shared: int s, turn; Initially: s = 0; turn=0; Process Pi code: Entry: me = FAA(s,1); while(turn < me); // busy wait for my turn Critical section Check yourself! Exit: Is mutual exclusion FAA(turn,1); satisfied?
OS Winter 03

Is progress satisfied? Is fairness satisfied?

Discussion
 Satisfies all three properties  Supports unbounded number of
processes  Unbounded counter  Busy waiting

OS Winter 03

Problems with studied synchronization methods

 Critical section framework is inconvenient
for programming  Performance penalty
Busy waiting Too coarse synchronization

 Using hardware primitives directly results

in non-portable code

OS Winter 03