Lock mutex semaphore what s the difference

Question

I ve heard these words related to concurrent programming  but what s the difference between them

User · Accepted Answer

A lock allows only one thread to enter the part that's locked and the lock is not shared with any other processes.

A mutex is the same as a lock but it can be system wide (shared by multiple processes).

A semaphore does the same as a mutex but allows x number of threads to enter, this can be used for example to limit the number of cpu, io or ram intensive tasks running at the same time.

For a more detailed post about the differences between mutex and semaphore read here.

You also have read/write locks that allows either unlimited number of readers or 1 writer at any given time.

User · Answer

Using C programming on a Linux variant as a base case for examples   Lock         Usually a very simple construct binary in operation either locked or unlocked        No concept of thread ownership  priority  sequencing etc         Usually a spin lock where the thread continuously checks for the locks availability         Usually relies on atomic operations e g  Test-and-set  compare-and-swap  fetch-and-add etc         Usually requires hardware support for atomic operation   File Locks         Usually used to coordinate access to a file via multiple processes         Multiple processes can hold the read lock however when any single process holds the write lock no other process is allowed to acquire a read or write lock         Example   flock  fcntl etc    Mutex         Mutex function calls usually work in kernel space and result in system calls         It uses the concept of ownership  Only the thread that currently holds the mutex can unlock it         Mutex is not recursive  Exception  PTHREAD MUTEX RECURSIVE          Usually used in Association with Condition Variables and passed as arguments to e g  pthread cond signal  pthread cond wait etc         Some UNIX systems allow mutex to be used by multiple processes although this may not be enforced on all systems   Semaphore         This is a kernel maintained integer whose values is not allowed to fall below zero         It can be used to synchronize processes         The value of the semaphore may be set to a value greater than 1 in which case the value usually indicates the number of resources available         A semaphore whose value is restricted to 1 and 0 is referred to as a binary semaphore

User · Answer

It is a general vision  Details are depended on real language realisation lock - thread synchronization tool  When thread get a lock it becomes a single thread which is able to execute a block of code  All others thread are blocked  Only  thread which owns by lock can unlock it mutex - mutual exclusion lock  It is a kind of lock  On some languages it is inter-process mechanism  on some languages it is a synonym of lock  For example Java uses lock in synchronised and java util concurrent locks Lock semaphore - allows a number of threads to access a shared resource  You can find that mutex also can be implemented by semaphore  It is a standalone object which manage an access to shared resource  You can find that any thread can signal and unblock   Also it is used for signalling  iOS lock  mutex  semaphore

User · Answer

My understanding is that a mutex is only for use within a single process  but across its many threads  whereas a semaphore may be used across multiple processes  and across their corresponding sets of threads   Also  a mutex is binary  it s either locked or unlocked   whereas a semaphore has a notion of counting  or a queue of more than one lock and unlock requests   Could someone verify my explanation  I m speaking in the context of Linux  specifically Red Hat Enterprise Linux  RHEL  version 6  which uses kernel 2 6 32

User · Answer

I will try to cover it with examples   Lock  One example where you would use lock would be a shared dictionary into which items  that must have unique keys  are added  The lock would ensure that one thread does not enter the mechanism of code that is checking for item being in dictionary while another thread  that is in the critical section  already has passed this check and is adding the item  If another thread tries to enter a locked code  it will wait  be blocked  until the object is released   private static readonly Object obj   new Object     lock  obj    after object is locked no thread can come in and insert item into dictionary on a different thread right before other thread passed the check          if   sharedDict ContainsKey key                 sharedDict Add item             Semaphore  Let s say you have a pool of connections  then an single thread might reserve one element in the pool by waiting for the semaphore to get a connection  It then uses the connection and when work is done releases the connection by releasing the semaphore   Code example that I love is one of bouncer given by  Patric - here it goes   using System  using System Collections Generic  using System Text  using System Threading   namespace TheNightclub       public class Program               public static Semaphore Bouncer   get  set             public static void Main string   args                           Create the semaphore with 3 slots  where 3 are available              Bouncer   new Semaphore 3  3                   Open the nightclub              OpenNightclub                       public static void OpenNightclub                         for  int i   1  i  lt   50  i                                     Let each guest enter on an own thread                  Thread thread   new Thread new ParameterizedThreadStart Guest                    thread Start i                                    public static void Guest object args                           Wait to enter the nightclub  a semaphore to be released               Console WriteLine  Guest  0  is waiting to entering nightclub    args               Bouncer WaitOne                              Do some dancing              Console WriteLine  Guest  0  is doing some dancing    args               Thread Sleep 500                   Let one guest out  release one semaphore               Console WriteLine  Guest  0  is leaving the nightclub    args               Bouncer Release 1                       Mutex It is pretty much Semaphore 1 1  and often used globally  application wide otherwise arguably lock is more appropriate   One would use global Mutex when deleting node from a globally accessible list  last thing you want another thread to do something while you are deleting the node   When you acquire Mutex if different thread tries to acquire the same Mutex it will be put to sleep till SAME thread that acquired the Mutex releases it   Good example on creating global mutex is by  deepee  class SingleGlobalInstance   IDisposable       public bool hasHandle   false      Mutex mutex       private void InitMutex                 string appGuid     GuidAttribute Assembly GetExecutingAssembly   GetCustomAttributes typeof GuidAttribute   false  GetValue 0   Value ToString            string mutexId   string Format  Global     0      appGuid           mutex   new Mutex false  mutexId            var allowEveryoneRule   new MutexAccessRule new SecurityIdentifier WellKnownSidType WorldSid  null   MutexRights FullControl  AccessControlType Allow           var securitySettings   new MutexSecurity            securitySettings AddAccessRule allowEveryoneRule           mutex SetAccessControl securitySettings              public SingleGlobalInstance int timeOut                InitMutex            try                       if timeOut  lt  0                  hasHandle   mutex WaitOne Timeout Infinite  false               else                 hasHandle   mutex WaitOne timeOut  false                if  hasHandle    false                  throw new TimeoutException  Timeout waiting for exclusive access on SingleInstance                      catch  AbandonedMutexException                        hasHandle   true                        public void Dispose                 if  mutex    null                        if  hasHandle                  mutex ReleaseMutex                mutex Dispose                        then use like   using  new SingleGlobalInstance 1000     1000ms timeout on global lock         Only 1 of these runs at a time     GlobalNodeList Remove node      Hope this saves you some time

User · Answer

Supporting ownership  maximum number of processes share lock and the maximum number of allowed processes threads in critical section are three major factors that determine the name type of the concurrent object with general name of lock  Since the value of these factors are binary  have two states   we can summarize them in a 3 8 truth-like table      X  Supports Ownership    no 0    yes 1  Y   sharing processes     1  8    1 Z   processes threads in CA     1  8    1         X   Y   Z          Name  --- --- --- ------------------------   0   8   8   Semaphore                 0   8   1   Binary Semaphore          0   1   8   SemaphoreSlim             0   1   1   Binary SemaphoreSlim      1   8   8   Recursive-Mutex           1   8   1   Mutex                     1   1   8   N A                       1   1   1   Lock Monitor              Feel free to edit or expand this table  I ve posted it as an ascii table to be editable

User · Answer

Wikipedia has a great section on the differences between Semaphores and Mutexes      A mutex is essentially the same thing as a binary semaphore and   sometimes uses the same basic implementation  The differences between   them are        Mutexes have a concept of an owner  which is the process   that locked the mutex  Only the process that locked the mutex can   unlock it  In contrast  a semaphore has no concept of an owner  Any   process can unlock a semaphore        Unlike semaphores  mutexes provide   priority inversion safety  Since the mutex knows its current owner  it   is possible to promote the priority of the owner whenever a   higher-priority task starts waiting on the mutex        Mutexes also provide   deletion safety  where the process holding the mutex cannot be   accidentally deleted  Semaphores do not provide this

User · Answer

Take a look at Multithreading Tutorial by John Kopplin    In the section Synchronization Between Threads  he explain the differences among event  lock  mutex  semaphore  waitable timer     A mutex can be owned by only one thread at a time  enabling threads to   coordinate mutually exclusive access to a shared resource      Critical section objects provide synchronization similar to that   provided by mutex objects  except that critical section objects can be   used only by the threads of a single process      Another difference between a mutex and a critical section is that if   the critical section object is currently owned by another thread    EnterCriticalSection   waits indefinitely for ownership whereas   WaitForSingleObject    which is used with a mutex  allows you to   specify a timeout      A semaphore maintains a count between zero and some maximum value    limiting the number of threads that are simultaneously accessing a   shared resource

User · Answer

Most problems can be solved using  i  just locks   ii  just semaphores       or  iii  a combination of both  As you may have discovered  they re very similar  both prevent race conditions  both have acquire   release   operations  both cause zero or more threads to become blocked suspected    Really  the crucial difference lies solely on how they lock and unlock     A lock  or mutex  has two states  0 or 1   It can be either unlocked or locked  They re often used to ensure only one thread enters a critical section at a time   A semaphore has many states  0  1  2        It can be locked  state 0  or unlocked  states 1  2  3        One or more semaphores are often used together to ensure that only one thread enters a critical section precisely when the number of units of some resource has hasn t reached a particular value  either via counting down to that value or counting up to that value      For both locks semaphores  trying to call acquire   while the primitive is in state 0 causes the invoking thread to be suspended  For locks - attempts to acquire the lock is in state 1 are successful  For semaphores - attempts to acquire the lock in states  1  2  3       are successful   For locks in state state 0  if same thread that had previously called acquire    now calls release  then the release is successful  If a different thread tried this -- it is down to the implementation library as to what happens  usually the attempt ignored or an error is thrown   For semaphores in state 0  any thread can call release and it will be successful  regardless of which thread previous used acquire to put the semaphore in state 0        From the preceding discussion  we can see that locks have a notion of an owner  the sole thread that can call release is the owner   whereas semaphores do not have an owner  any thread can call release on a semaphore      What causes a lot of confusion is that  in practice they are many variations of this high-level definition    Important variations to consider    What should the acquire   release   be called  --  Varies massively  Does your lock semaphore use a  queue  or a  set  to remember the threads waiting   Can your lock semaphore be shared with threads of other processes   Is your lock  reentrant   --  Usually yes   Is your lock  blocking non-blocking   --  Normally non-blocking are used as blocking locks  aka spin-locks  cause busy waiting   How do you ensure the operations are  atomic     These depends on your book   lecturer   language   library   environment  Here s a quick tour noting how some languages answer these details     C  C    pthreads    A mutex is implemented via pthread mutex t  By default  they can t be shared with any other processes  PTHREAD PROCESS PRIVATE   however mutex s have an attribute called pshared  When set  so the mutex is shared between processes  PTHREAD PROCESS SHARED    A lock is the same thing as a mutex   A semaphore is implemented via sem t  Similar to mutexes  semaphores can be shared between threasds of many processes or kept private to the threads of one single process  This depends on the pshared argument provided to sem init     python  threading py    A lock  threading RLock  is mostly the same as C C   pthread mutex ts  Both are both reentrant  This means they may only be unlocked by the same thread that locked it  It is the case that sem t semaphores  threading Semaphore semaphores and theading Lock locks are not reentrant -- for it is the case any thread can perform unlock the lock   down the semaphore  A mutex is the same as a lock  the term is not used often in python   A semaphore  threading Semaphore  is mostly the same as sem t  Although with sem t  a queue of thread ids is used to remember the order in which threads became blocked when attempting to lock it while it is locked  When a thread unlocks a semaphore  the first thread in the queue  if there is one  is chosen to be the new owner  The thread identifier is taken off the queue and the semaphore becomes locked again  However  with threading Semaphore  a set is used instead of a queue  so the order in which threads became blocked is not stored -- any thread in the set may be chosen to be the next owner    Java  java util concurrent    A lock  java util concurrent ReentrantLock  is mostly the same as C C   pthread mutex t s  and Python s threading RLock in that it also implements a reentrant lock  Sharing locks between processes is harder in Java because of the JVM acting as an intermediary  If a thread tries to unlock a lock it doesn t own  an IllegalMonitorStateException is thrown  A mutex is the same as a lock  the term is not used often in Java   A semaphore  java util concurrent Semaphore  is mostly the same as sem t and threading Semaphore  The constructor for Java semaphores accept a fairness boolean parameter that control whether to use a set  false  or a queue  true  for storing the waiting threads        In theory  semaphores are often discussed  but in practice  semaphores aren t used so much  A semaphore only hold the state of one integer  so often it s rather inflexible and many are needed at once -- causing difficulty in understanding code  Also  the fact that any thread can release a semaphore is sometimes undesired  More object-oriented   higher-level synchronization primitives   abstractions such as  condition variables  and  monitors  are used instead

User · Answer

There are a lot of misconceptions regarding these words   This is from a previous post  https   stackoverflow com a 24582076 3163691  which fits superb here   1  Critical Section  User object used for allowing the execution of just one active thread from many others within one process  The other non selected threads    acquiring this object  are put to sleep    No interprocess capability  very primitive object    2  Mutex Semaphore  aka Mutex   Kernel object used for allowing the execution of just one active thread from many others  among different processes  The other non selected threads    acquiring this object  are put to sleep  This object supports thread ownership  thread termination notification  recursion  multiple  acquire  calls from same thread  and  priority inversion avoidance      Interprocess capability  very safe to use  a kind of  high level  synchronization object    3  Counting Semaphore  aka Semaphore   Kernel object used for allowing the execution of a group of active threads from many others  The other non selected threads    acquiring this object  are put to sleep     Interprocess capability however not very safe to use because it lacks following  mutex  attributes  thread termination notification  recursion    priority inversion avoidance    etc    4  And now  talking about  spinlocks   first some definitions   Critical Region  A region of memory shared by 2 or more processes   Lock  A variable whose value allows or denies the entrance to a  critical region    It could be implemented as a simple  boolean flag     Busy waiting  Continuosly testing of a variable until some value appears   Finally   Spin-lock  aka Spinlock   A lock which uses busy waiting   The acquiring of the lock is made by xchg or similar atomic operations     No thread sleeping  mostly used at kernel level only  Ineffcient for User level code     As a last comment  I am not sure but I can bet you some big bucks that the above first 3 synchronizing objects   1   2 and  3  make use of this simple beast   4  as part of their implementation   Have a good day    References   -Real-Time Concepts for Embedded Systems by Qing Li with Caroline Yao  CMP Books    -Modern Operating Systems  3rd  by Andrew Tanenbaum  Pearson Education International    -Programming Applications for Microsoft Windows  4th  by Jeffrey Richter  Microsoft Programming Series    Also  you can take a look at look at  https   stackoverflow com a 24586803 3163691

[concurrency] Lock, mutex, semaphore... what's the difference?

Examples related to concurrency

Examples related to locking

Examples related to mutex

Examples related to semaphore