Difference between binary semaphore and mutex

Question

Is there any difference between a binary semaphore and mutex or are they essentially the same?

Answer 1

The Toilet example is an enjoyable analogy:

Mutex:

Is a key to a toilet. One person can have the key - occupy the toilet - at the time. When finished, the person gives (frees) the key to the next person in the queue.

Officially: "Mutexes are typically used to serialise access to a section of re-entrant code that cannot be executed concurrently by more than one thread. A mutex object only allows one thread into a controlled section, forcing other threads which attempt to gain access to that section to wait until the first thread has exited from that section." Ref: Symbian Developer Library

(A mutex is really a semaphore with value 1.)

Semaphore:

Is the number of free identical toilet keys. Example, say we have four toilets with identical locks and keys. The semaphore count - the count of keys - is set to 4 at beginning (all four toilets are free), then the count value is decremented as people are coming in. If all toilets are full, ie. there are no free keys left, the semaphore count is 0. Now, when eq. one person leaves the toilet, semaphore is increased to 1 (one free key), and given to the next person in the queue.

Officially: "A semaphore restricts the number of simultaneous users of a shared resource up to a maximum number. Threads can request access to the resource (decrementing the semaphore), and can signal that they have finished using the resource (incrementing the semaphore)." Ref: Symbian Developer Library

Answer 2

You obviously use mutex to lock a data in one thread getting accessed by another thread at the same time. Assume that you have just called lock() and in the process of accessing data. This means that you don’t expect any other thread (or another instance of the same thread-code) to access the same data locked by the same mutex. That is, if it is the same thread-code getting executed on a different thread instance, hits the lock, then the lock() should block the control flow there. This applies to a thread that uses a different thread-code, which is also accessing the same data and which is also locked by the same mutex. In this case, you are still in the process of accessing the data and you may take, say, another 15 secs to reach the mutex unlock (so that the other thread that is getting blocked in mutex lock would unblock and would allow the control to access the data). Do you at any cost allow yet another thread to just unlock the same mutex, and in turn, allow the thread that is already waiting (blocking) in the mutex lock to unblock and access the data? Hope you got what I am saying here? As per, agreed upon universal definition!,

• with “mutex” this can’t happen. No other thread can unlock the lock in your thread
• with “binary-semaphore” this can happen. Any other thread can unlock the lock in your thread

So, if you are very particular about using binary-semaphore instead of mutex, then you should be very careful in “scoping” the locks and unlocks. I mean that every control-flow that hits every lock should hit an unlock call, also there shouldn’t be any “first unlock”, rather it should be always “first lock”.

Answer 3

A Mutex controls access to a single shared resource. It provides operations to acquire() access to that resource and release() it when done.

A Semaphore controls access to a shared pool of resources. It provides operations to Wait() until one of the resources in the pool becomes available, and Signal() when it is given back to the pool.

When number of resources a Semaphore protects is greater than 1, it is called a Counting Semaphore. When it controls one resource, it is called a Boolean Semaphore. A boolean semaphore is equivalent to a mutex.

Thus a Semaphore is a higher level abstraction than Mutex. A Mutex can be implemented using a Semaphore but not the other way around.

Answer 4

Apart from the fact that mutexes have an owner, the two objects may be optimized for different usage. Mutexes are designed to be held only for a short time; violating this can cause poor performance and unfair scheduling. For example, a running thread may be permitted to acquire a mutex, even though another thread is already blocked on it. Semaphores may provide more fairness, or fairness can be forced using several condition variables.

Answer 5

While a binary semaphore may be used as a mutex, a mutex is a more specific use-case, in that only the process that locked the mutex is supposed to unlock it. This ownership constraint makes it possible to provide protection against:

• Accidental release
• Recursive Deadlock
• Task Death Deadlock

These constraints are not always present because they degrade the speed. During the development of your code, you can enable these checks temporarily.

e.g. you can enable Error check attribute in your mutex. Error checking mutexes return EDEADLK if you try to lock the same one twice and EPERM if you unlock a mutex that isn't yours.

pthread_mutex_t mutex;
pthread_mutexattr_t attr;
pthread_mutexattr_init (&attr);
pthread_mutexattr_settype (&attr, PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK_NP);
pthread_mutex_init (&mutex, &attr);

Once initialised we can place these checks in our code like this:

if(pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex)==EPERM)
 printf("Unlock failed:Mutex not owned by this thread\n");

Answer 6

Mutex work on blocking critical region, But Semaphore work on count.