; Process one:
lesi Semaph1
WaitSemaph
// Assume interrupt occurs here //
lesi Semaph2
WaitSemaph
.
.
.
; Process two:
lesi Semaph2
WaitSemaph
lesi Semaph1
WaitSemaph
.
.
.
Process one grabs the semaphore associated with Semaph1. Then a timer interrupt comes along which causes a context switch to process two. Process two grabs the semaphore associated with Semaph2 and then tries to get Semaph1. However, process one is already holding Semaph1, so process two blocks and waits for process one to release this semaphore. This returns control (eventually) to process one. Process one then tries to graph Semaph2. Unfortunately, process two is already holding Semaph2, so process one blocks waiting for Semaph2. Now both processes are blocked waiting for the other. Since neither process can run, neither process can release the semaphore the other needs. Both processes are deadlocked.
One easy way to prevent deadlock from occurring is to never allow a process to hold more than one semaphore at a time. Unfortunately, this is not a practical solution; many processes may need to have exclusive access to several resources at one time. However, we can devise another solution by observing the pattern that resulted in deadlock in the previous example. Deadlock came about because the two processes grabbed different semaphores and then tried to grab the semaphore that the other was holding. In other words, they grabbed the two semaphores in a different order (process one grabbed Semaph1 first and Semaph2 second, process two grabbed Semaph2 first and Semaph1 second). It turns out that two process will never deadlock if they wait on common semaphores in the same order. We could modify the previous example to eliminate the possibility of deadlock thusly:
; Process one:
lesi Semaph1
WaitSemaph
lesi Semaph2
WaitSemaph
.
.
.
; Process two:
lesi Semaph1
WaitSemaph
lesi Semaph2
WaitSemaph
.
.
.
Now it doesn't matter where the interrupt occurs above, deadlock cannot occur. If the interrupt occurs between the two WaitSemaph calls in process one (as before), when process two attempts to wait on Semaph1, it will block and process one will continue with Semaph2 available.
An easy way to keep out of trouble with deadlock is to number all your semaphore variables and make sure that all processes acquire (wait on) semaphores from the smallest numbered semaphore to the highest. This ensures that all processes acquire the semaphores in the same order, and that ensures that deadlock cannot occurs.
Note that this policy of acquiring semaphores only applies to semaphores that a process holds concurrently. If a process needs semaphore six for a while, and then it needs semaphore two after it has released semaphore six, there is no problem acquiring semaphore two after releasing semaphore six. However, if at any point the process needs to hold both semaphores, it must acquire semaphore two first.
Processes may release the semaphores in any order. The order that a process releases semaphores does not affect whether deadlock can occur. Of course, processes should always release a semaphore as soon as the process is done with the resource guarded by that semaphore; there may be other processes waiting on that semaphore.
While the above scheme works and is easy to implement, it is by no means the only way to handle deadlock, nor is it always the most efficient. However, it is simple to implement and it always works. For more information on deadlocks, see a good operating systems text.