What happens if a thread is in the critical section or entering the critical section?










-1















I am trying to better understand a chapter and have been confused about what happens if a thread is in the critical section or is entering the critical section. May someone explain or give me an idea on the process of what the thread undergoes in such circumstances? Thank you.










share|improve this question


























    -1















    I am trying to better understand a chapter and have been confused about what happens if a thread is in the critical section or is entering the critical section. May someone explain or give me an idea on the process of what the thread undergoes in such circumstances? Thank you.










    share|improve this question
























      -1












      -1








      -1








      I am trying to better understand a chapter and have been confused about what happens if a thread is in the critical section or is entering the critical section. May someone explain or give me an idea on the process of what the thread undergoes in such circumstances? Thank you.










      share|improve this question














      I am trying to better understand a chapter and have been confused about what happens if a thread is in the critical section or is entering the critical section. May someone explain or give me an idea on the process of what the thread undergoes in such circumstances? Thank you.







      operating-system thread-synchronization






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 11 '18 at 0:06









      justonedayjustoneday

      113




      113






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0














          For an example, let's assume that you have an array, and multiple threads that read and write to the array; and if different threads are reading and writing to the array at the same time they'd see inconsistent data and it'd cause problems. To prevent those problems you protect the array with some kind of lock - before doing anything with the array a thread acquires the array's lock, and when it's finished using the array the thread releases the array's lock.



          For example:



           acquire_array_lock();
          /** Critical section (code that does something with the array) **/
          release_array_lock();


          There's nothing special about the code in the critical section. It does whatever it was designed to do (maybe sorting the array, maybe adding up all the numbers in the array, maybe displaying the array, etc) using code that's no different to code that you might use to do the same thing in a single-threaded system without locks.



          The only special parts are the code to acquire and release the lock.



          There are many types of locks (spinlocks, mutexes, semaphores), but they all have the same fundamental principle - when acquiring it you have something (e.g. a variable) to determine if a thread can/can't continue, then either (if the thread can't continue) some kind of waiting or (if the thread can continue) some kind of change to let others know they need to wait; and when releasing you have something to let others know they can stop waiting.



          The main difference between different kinds of locks is the implementation details - what kind of data is used to determine if a thread can/can't continue, and how a thread waits.



          For the simplest kind of lock (a spinlock) you might just have a single "yes/no" flag, a little bit like this (but not literally like this):



          acquire_lock(void) 
          while(myLock == 0)
          // do nothing then retry

          myLock = 1;


          release_lock(void)
          myLock = 0;



          However this won't work because two or more threads can see that myLock == 0 at the same time and think they can both continue (and then do the myLock = 1 after it's too late). To fix this you need assembly language or special language support for atomic operations (e.g. a special function for "test and set" or "compare and exchange").



          The reason this is called a "spinlock" is that (if a thread needs to wait) it wastes CPU time continually checking ("spinning") to see if it can continue. Instead of doing this (to avoid wasting CPU time), a thread could tell a scheduler not to give it any CPU time until the lock is released; and this is how a mutex works.






          share|improve this answer























          • thank you! But can the process holding the lock get context switched?

            – justoneday
            Nov 11 '18 at 21:29











          • @justoneday: Whether a task holding a lock can get context switched depends on the environment. For normal tasks (threads, processes) on most operating systems a task can be context switched while holding a lock (otherwise there's a risk of malicious code deliberately acquiring a lock and never releasing it to hog all of the CPU time). For kernel code using spinlocks, typically context switches (and possibly IRQs too) are disabled to minimise the time that other CPUs will spend spinning.

            – Brendan
            Nov 12 '18 at 3:57










          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          );
          );
          , "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53244644%2fwhat-happens-if-a-thread-is-in-the-critical-section-or-entering-the-critical-sec%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0














          For an example, let's assume that you have an array, and multiple threads that read and write to the array; and if different threads are reading and writing to the array at the same time they'd see inconsistent data and it'd cause problems. To prevent those problems you protect the array with some kind of lock - before doing anything with the array a thread acquires the array's lock, and when it's finished using the array the thread releases the array's lock.



          For example:



           acquire_array_lock();
          /** Critical section (code that does something with the array) **/
          release_array_lock();


          There's nothing special about the code in the critical section. It does whatever it was designed to do (maybe sorting the array, maybe adding up all the numbers in the array, maybe displaying the array, etc) using code that's no different to code that you might use to do the same thing in a single-threaded system without locks.



          The only special parts are the code to acquire and release the lock.



          There are many types of locks (spinlocks, mutexes, semaphores), but they all have the same fundamental principle - when acquiring it you have something (e.g. a variable) to determine if a thread can/can't continue, then either (if the thread can't continue) some kind of waiting or (if the thread can continue) some kind of change to let others know they need to wait; and when releasing you have something to let others know they can stop waiting.



          The main difference between different kinds of locks is the implementation details - what kind of data is used to determine if a thread can/can't continue, and how a thread waits.



          For the simplest kind of lock (a spinlock) you might just have a single "yes/no" flag, a little bit like this (but not literally like this):



          acquire_lock(void) 
          while(myLock == 0)
          // do nothing then retry

          myLock = 1;


          release_lock(void)
          myLock = 0;



          However this won't work because two or more threads can see that myLock == 0 at the same time and think they can both continue (and then do the myLock = 1 after it's too late). To fix this you need assembly language or special language support for atomic operations (e.g. a special function for "test and set" or "compare and exchange").



          The reason this is called a "spinlock" is that (if a thread needs to wait) it wastes CPU time continually checking ("spinning") to see if it can continue. Instead of doing this (to avoid wasting CPU time), a thread could tell a scheduler not to give it any CPU time until the lock is released; and this is how a mutex works.






          share|improve this answer























          • thank you! But can the process holding the lock get context switched?

            – justoneday
            Nov 11 '18 at 21:29











          • @justoneday: Whether a task holding a lock can get context switched depends on the environment. For normal tasks (threads, processes) on most operating systems a task can be context switched while holding a lock (otherwise there's a risk of malicious code deliberately acquiring a lock and never releasing it to hog all of the CPU time). For kernel code using spinlocks, typically context switches (and possibly IRQs too) are disabled to minimise the time that other CPUs will spend spinning.

            – Brendan
            Nov 12 '18 at 3:57















          0














          For an example, let's assume that you have an array, and multiple threads that read and write to the array; and if different threads are reading and writing to the array at the same time they'd see inconsistent data and it'd cause problems. To prevent those problems you protect the array with some kind of lock - before doing anything with the array a thread acquires the array's lock, and when it's finished using the array the thread releases the array's lock.



          For example:



           acquire_array_lock();
          /** Critical section (code that does something with the array) **/
          release_array_lock();


          There's nothing special about the code in the critical section. It does whatever it was designed to do (maybe sorting the array, maybe adding up all the numbers in the array, maybe displaying the array, etc) using code that's no different to code that you might use to do the same thing in a single-threaded system without locks.



          The only special parts are the code to acquire and release the lock.



          There are many types of locks (spinlocks, mutexes, semaphores), but they all have the same fundamental principle - when acquiring it you have something (e.g. a variable) to determine if a thread can/can't continue, then either (if the thread can't continue) some kind of waiting or (if the thread can continue) some kind of change to let others know they need to wait; and when releasing you have something to let others know they can stop waiting.



          The main difference between different kinds of locks is the implementation details - what kind of data is used to determine if a thread can/can't continue, and how a thread waits.



          For the simplest kind of lock (a spinlock) you might just have a single "yes/no" flag, a little bit like this (but not literally like this):



          acquire_lock(void) 
          while(myLock == 0)
          // do nothing then retry

          myLock = 1;


          release_lock(void)
          myLock = 0;



          However this won't work because two or more threads can see that myLock == 0 at the same time and think they can both continue (and then do the myLock = 1 after it's too late). To fix this you need assembly language or special language support for atomic operations (e.g. a special function for "test and set" or "compare and exchange").



          The reason this is called a "spinlock" is that (if a thread needs to wait) it wastes CPU time continually checking ("spinning") to see if it can continue. Instead of doing this (to avoid wasting CPU time), a thread could tell a scheduler not to give it any CPU time until the lock is released; and this is how a mutex works.






          share|improve this answer























          • thank you! But can the process holding the lock get context switched?

            – justoneday
            Nov 11 '18 at 21:29











          • @justoneday: Whether a task holding a lock can get context switched depends on the environment. For normal tasks (threads, processes) on most operating systems a task can be context switched while holding a lock (otherwise there's a risk of malicious code deliberately acquiring a lock and never releasing it to hog all of the CPU time). For kernel code using spinlocks, typically context switches (and possibly IRQs too) are disabled to minimise the time that other CPUs will spend spinning.

            – Brendan
            Nov 12 '18 at 3:57













          0












          0








          0







          For an example, let's assume that you have an array, and multiple threads that read and write to the array; and if different threads are reading and writing to the array at the same time they'd see inconsistent data and it'd cause problems. To prevent those problems you protect the array with some kind of lock - before doing anything with the array a thread acquires the array's lock, and when it's finished using the array the thread releases the array's lock.



          For example:



           acquire_array_lock();
          /** Critical section (code that does something with the array) **/
          release_array_lock();


          There's nothing special about the code in the critical section. It does whatever it was designed to do (maybe sorting the array, maybe adding up all the numbers in the array, maybe displaying the array, etc) using code that's no different to code that you might use to do the same thing in a single-threaded system without locks.



          The only special parts are the code to acquire and release the lock.



          There are many types of locks (spinlocks, mutexes, semaphores), but they all have the same fundamental principle - when acquiring it you have something (e.g. a variable) to determine if a thread can/can't continue, then either (if the thread can't continue) some kind of waiting or (if the thread can continue) some kind of change to let others know they need to wait; and when releasing you have something to let others know they can stop waiting.



          The main difference between different kinds of locks is the implementation details - what kind of data is used to determine if a thread can/can't continue, and how a thread waits.



          For the simplest kind of lock (a spinlock) you might just have a single "yes/no" flag, a little bit like this (but not literally like this):



          acquire_lock(void) 
          while(myLock == 0)
          // do nothing then retry

          myLock = 1;


          release_lock(void)
          myLock = 0;



          However this won't work because two or more threads can see that myLock == 0 at the same time and think they can both continue (and then do the myLock = 1 after it's too late). To fix this you need assembly language or special language support for atomic operations (e.g. a special function for "test and set" or "compare and exchange").



          The reason this is called a "spinlock" is that (if a thread needs to wait) it wastes CPU time continually checking ("spinning") to see if it can continue. Instead of doing this (to avoid wasting CPU time), a thread could tell a scheduler not to give it any CPU time until the lock is released; and this is how a mutex works.






          share|improve this answer













          For an example, let's assume that you have an array, and multiple threads that read and write to the array; and if different threads are reading and writing to the array at the same time they'd see inconsistent data and it'd cause problems. To prevent those problems you protect the array with some kind of lock - before doing anything with the array a thread acquires the array's lock, and when it's finished using the array the thread releases the array's lock.



          For example:



           acquire_array_lock();
          /** Critical section (code that does something with the array) **/
          release_array_lock();


          There's nothing special about the code in the critical section. It does whatever it was designed to do (maybe sorting the array, maybe adding up all the numbers in the array, maybe displaying the array, etc) using code that's no different to code that you might use to do the same thing in a single-threaded system without locks.



          The only special parts are the code to acquire and release the lock.



          There are many types of locks (spinlocks, mutexes, semaphores), but they all have the same fundamental principle - when acquiring it you have something (e.g. a variable) to determine if a thread can/can't continue, then either (if the thread can't continue) some kind of waiting or (if the thread can continue) some kind of change to let others know they need to wait; and when releasing you have something to let others know they can stop waiting.



          The main difference between different kinds of locks is the implementation details - what kind of data is used to determine if a thread can/can't continue, and how a thread waits.



          For the simplest kind of lock (a spinlock) you might just have a single "yes/no" flag, a little bit like this (but not literally like this):



          acquire_lock(void) 
          while(myLock == 0)
          // do nothing then retry

          myLock = 1;


          release_lock(void)
          myLock = 0;



          However this won't work because two or more threads can see that myLock == 0 at the same time and think they can both continue (and then do the myLock = 1 after it's too late). To fix this you need assembly language or special language support for atomic operations (e.g. a special function for "test and set" or "compare and exchange").



          The reason this is called a "spinlock" is that (if a thread needs to wait) it wastes CPU time continually checking ("spinning") to see if it can continue. Instead of doing this (to avoid wasting CPU time), a thread could tell a scheduler not to give it any CPU time until the lock is released; and this is how a mutex works.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 11 '18 at 4:10









          BrendanBrendan

          12.4k1330




          12.4k1330












          • thank you! But can the process holding the lock get context switched?

            – justoneday
            Nov 11 '18 at 21:29











          • @justoneday: Whether a task holding a lock can get context switched depends on the environment. For normal tasks (threads, processes) on most operating systems a task can be context switched while holding a lock (otherwise there's a risk of malicious code deliberately acquiring a lock and never releasing it to hog all of the CPU time). For kernel code using spinlocks, typically context switches (and possibly IRQs too) are disabled to minimise the time that other CPUs will spend spinning.

            – Brendan
            Nov 12 '18 at 3:57

















          • thank you! But can the process holding the lock get context switched?

            – justoneday
            Nov 11 '18 at 21:29











          • @justoneday: Whether a task holding a lock can get context switched depends on the environment. For normal tasks (threads, processes) on most operating systems a task can be context switched while holding a lock (otherwise there's a risk of malicious code deliberately acquiring a lock and never releasing it to hog all of the CPU time). For kernel code using spinlocks, typically context switches (and possibly IRQs too) are disabled to minimise the time that other CPUs will spend spinning.

            – Brendan
            Nov 12 '18 at 3:57
















          thank you! But can the process holding the lock get context switched?

          – justoneday
          Nov 11 '18 at 21:29





          thank you! But can the process holding the lock get context switched?

          – justoneday
          Nov 11 '18 at 21:29













          @justoneday: Whether a task holding a lock can get context switched depends on the environment. For normal tasks (threads, processes) on most operating systems a task can be context switched while holding a lock (otherwise there's a risk of malicious code deliberately acquiring a lock and never releasing it to hog all of the CPU time). For kernel code using spinlocks, typically context switches (and possibly IRQs too) are disabled to minimise the time that other CPUs will spend spinning.

          – Brendan
          Nov 12 '18 at 3:57





          @justoneday: Whether a task holding a lock can get context switched depends on the environment. For normal tasks (threads, processes) on most operating systems a task can be context switched while holding a lock (otherwise there's a risk of malicious code deliberately acquiring a lock and never releasing it to hog all of the CPU time). For kernel code using spinlocks, typically context switches (and possibly IRQs too) are disabled to minimise the time that other CPUs will spend spinning.

          – Brendan
          Nov 12 '18 at 3:57

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53244644%2fwhat-happens-if-a-thread-is-in-the-critical-section-or-entering-the-critical-sec%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

          Crossroads (UK TV series)

          ữḛḳṊẴ ẋ,Ẩṙ,ỹḛẪẠứụỿṞṦ,Ṉẍừ,ứ Ị,Ḵ,ṏ ṇỪḎḰṰọửḊ ṾḨḮữẑỶṑỗḮṣṉẃ Ữẩụ,ṓ,ḹẕḪḫỞṿḭ ỒṱṨẁṋṜ ḅẈ ṉ ứṀḱṑỒḵ,ḏ,ḊḖỹẊ Ẻḷổ,ṥ ẔḲẪụḣể Ṱ ḭỏựẶ Ồ Ṩ,ẂḿṡḾồ ỗṗṡịṞẤḵṽẃ ṸḒẄẘ,ủẞẵṦṟầṓế