When should one use a spinlock instead of mutex

Question

I think both are doing the same job how do you decide which one to use for synchronization

User · Answer

Using spinlocks on a single-core single-CPU system makes usually no sense  since as long as the spinlock polling is blocking the only available CPU core  no other thread can run and since no other thread can run  the lock won t be unlocked either  IOW  a spinlock wastes only CPU time on those systems for no real benefit   This is wrong  There is no wastage of cpu cycles in using spinlocks on uni processor systems  because once a process takes a spin lock   preemption is disabled   so as such  there could be no one else spinning  It s just that using it doesn t make any sense  Hence  spinlocks on Uni systems are replaced by preempt disable at compile time by the kernel

User · Answer

Spinlock and Mutex synchronization mechanisms are very common today to be seen   Let s think about Spinlock first   Basically it is a busy waiting action  which means that we have to wait for a specified lock is released before we can proceed with the next action  Conceptually very simple  while implementing it is not on the case  For example  If the lock has not been released then the thread was swap-out and get into the sleep state  should do we deal with it  How to deal with synchronization locks when two threads simultaneously request access    Generally  the most intuitive idea is dealing with synchronization via a variable to protect the critical section  The concept of Mutex is similar  but they are still different  Focus on  CPU utilization  Spinlock consumes CPU time to wait for do the action  and therefore  we can sum up the difference between the two   In homogeneous multi-core environments  if the time spend on critical section is small than use Spinlock  because we can reduce the context switch time   Single-core comparison is not important  because some systems implementation Spinlock in the middle of the switch   In Windows  using Spinlock will upgrade the thread to DISPATCH LEVEL  which in some cases may be not allowed  so this time we had to use a Mutex  APC LEVEL

User · Answer

The Theory  In theory  when a thread tries to lock a mutex and it does not succeed  because the mutex is already locked  it will go to sleep  immediately allowing another thread to run  It will continue to sleep until being woken up  which will be the case once the mutex is being unlocked by whatever thread was holding the lock before  When a thread tries to lock a spinlock and it does not succeed  it will continuously re-try locking it  until it finally succeeds  thus it will not allow another thread to take its place  however  the operating system will forcefully switch to another thread  once the CPU runtime quantum of the current thread has been exceeded  of course    The Problem  The problem with mutexes is that putting threads to sleep and waking them up again are both rather expensive operations  they ll need quite a lot of CPU instructions and thus also take some time  If now the mutex was only locked for a very short amount of time  the time spent in putting a thread to sleep and waking it up again might exceed the time the thread has actually slept by far and it might even exceed the time the thread would have wasted by constantly polling on a spinlock  On the other hand  polling on a spinlock will constantly waste CPU time and if the lock is held for a longer amount of time  this will waste a lot more CPU time and it would have been much better if the thread was sleeping instead   The Solution  Using spinlocks on a single-core single-CPU system makes usually no sense  since as long as the spinlock polling is blocking the only available CPU core  no other thread can run and since no other thread can run  the lock won t be unlocked either  IOW  a spinlock wastes only CPU time on those systems for no real benefit  If the thread was put to sleep instead  another thread could have ran at once  possibly unlocking the lock and then allowing the first thread to continue processing  once it woke up again   On a multi-core multi-CPU systems  with plenty of locks that are held for a very short amount of time only  the time wasted for constantly putting threads to sleep and waking them up again might decrease runtime performance noticeably  When using spinlocks instead  threads get the chance to take advantage of their full runtime quantum  always only blocking for a very short time period  but then immediately continue their work   leading to much higher processing throughput   The Practice  Since very often programmers cannot know in advance if mutexes or spinlocks will be better  e g  because the number of CPU cores of the target architecture is unknown   nor can operating systems know if a certain piece of code has been optimized for single-core or multi-core environments  most systems don t strictly distinguish between mutexes and spinlocks  In fact  most modern operating systems have hybrid mutexes and hybrid spinlocks  What does that actually mean   A hybrid mutex behaves like a spinlock at first on a multi-core system  If a thread cannot lock the mutex  it won t be put to sleep immediately  since the mutex might get unlocked pretty soon  so instead the mutex will first behave exactly like a spinlock  Only if the lock has still not been obtained after a certain amount of time  or retries or any other measuring factor   the thread is really put to sleep  If the same code runs on a system with only a single core  the mutex will not spinlock  though  as  see above  that would not be beneficial   A hybrid spinlock behaves like a normal spinlock at first  but to avoid wasting too much CPU time  it may have a back-off strategy  It will usually not put the thread to sleep  since you don t want that to happen when using a spinlock   but it may decide to stop the thread  either immediately or after a certain amount of time  and allow another thread to run  thus increasing chances that the spinlock is unlocked  a pure thread switch is usually less expensive than one that involves putting a thread to sleep and waking it up again later on  though not by far    Summary  If in doubt  use mutexes  they are usually the better choice and most modern systems will allow them to spinlock for a very short amount of time  if this seems beneficial  Using spinlocks can sometimes improve performance  but only under certain conditions and the fact that you are in doubt rather tells me  that you are not working on any project currently where a spinlock might be beneficial  You might consider using your own  lock object   that can either use a spinlock or a mutex internally  e g  this behavior could be configurable when creating such an object   initially use mutexes everywhere and if you think that using a spinlock somewhere might really help  give it a try and compare the results  e g  using a profiler   but be sure to test both cases  a single-core and a multi-core system before you jump to conclusions  and possibly different operating systems  if your code will be cross-platform    Update  A Warning for iOS  Actually not iOS specific but iOS is the platform where most developers may face that problem  If your system has a thread scheduler  that does not guarantee that any thread  no matter how low its priority may be  will eventually get a chance to run  then spinlocks can lead to permanent deadlocks  The iOS scheduler distinguishes different classes of threads and threads on a lower class will only run if no thread in a higher class wants to run as well  There is no back-off strategy for this  so if you permanently have high class threads available  low class threads will never get any CPU time and thus never any chance to perform any work   The problem appears as follow  Your code obtains a spinlock in a low prio class thread and while it is in the middle of that lock  the time quantum has exceeded and the thread stops running  The only way how this spinlock can be released again is if that low prio class thread gets CPU time again but this is not guaranteed to happen  You may have a couple of high prio class threads that constantly want to run and the task scheduler will always prioritize those  One of them may run across the spinlock and try to obtain it  which isn t possible of course  and the system will make it yield  The problem is  A thread that yielded is immediately available for running again  Having a higher prio than the thread holding the lock  the thread holding the lock has no chance to get CPU runtime  Either some other thread will get runtime or the thread that just yielded   Why does this problem not occur with mutexes  When the high prio thread cannot obtain the mutex  it won t yield  it may spin a bit but will eventually be sent to sleep  A sleeping thread is not available for running until it is woken up by an event  e g  an event like the mutex being unlocked it has been waiting for  Apple is aware of that problem and has thus deprecated OSSpinLock as a result  The new lock is called os unfair lock  This lock avoids the situation mentioned above as it is aware of the different thread priority classes  If you are sure that using spinlocks is a good idea in your iOS project  use that one  Stay away from OSSpinLock  And under no circumstances implement your own spinlocks in iOS  If in doubt  use a mutex  macOS is not affected by this issue as it has a different thread scheduler that won t allow any thread  even low prio threads  to  run dry  on CPU time  still the same situation can arise there and will then lead to very poor performance  thus OSSpinLock is deprecated on macOS as well

User · Answer

Continuing with Mecki s suggestion  this article pthread mutex vs pthread spinlock on Alexander Sandler s blog  Alex on Linux shows how the spinlock  amp  mutexes can be implemented to test the behavior using  ifdef      However  be sure to take the final call based on your observation  understanding as the example given is an isolated case  your project requirement  environment may be entirely different

User · Answer

Please also note that on certain environments and conditions  such as running on windows on dispatch level    DISPATCH LEVEL   you cannot use mutex but rather spinlock  On unix - same thing   Here is equivalent question on competitor stackexchange unix site  https   unix stackexchange com questions 5107 why-are-spin-locks-good-choices-in-linux-kernel-design-instead-of-something-more  Info on dispatching on windows systems  http   download microsoft com download e b a eba1050f-a31d-436b-9281-92cdfeae4b45 IRQL thread doc

User · Answer

The rule for using spinlocks is simple  use a spinlock if and only if the real time the lock is held is bounded and sufficiently small  Note that usually user implemented spinlocks DO NOT satisfy this requirement because they do not disable interrupts  Unless pre-emptions are disabled  a pre-emption whilst a spinlock is held violates the bounded time requirement  Sufficiently small is a judgement call and depends on the context  Exception  some kernel programming must use a spinlock even when the time is not bounded  In particular if a CPU has no work to do  it has no choice but to spin until some more work turns up  Special danger  in low level programming take great care when multiple interrupt priorities exist  usually there is at least one non-maskable interrupt   In this higher priority pre-emptions can run even if interrupts at the thread priority are disabled  such as priority hardware services  often related to the virtual memory management   Provided a strict priority separation is maintained  the condition for bounded real time must be relaxed and replaced with bounded system time at that priority level  Note in this case not only can the lock holder be pre-empted but the spinner can also be interrupted  this is generally not a problem because there s nothing you can do about it

User · Answer

Mecki s answer pretty well nails it   However  on a single processor  using a spinlock might make sense when the task is waiting on the lock to be given by an Interrupt Service Routine   The interrupt would transfer control to the ISR  which would ready the resource for use by the waiting task   It would end by releasing the lock before giving control back to the interrupted task   The spinning task would find the spinlock available and proceed

[synchronization] When should one use a spinlock instead of mutex?

Examples related to synchronization

Examples related to mutex

Examples related to spinlock