In every tutorial about mutex, mutex is described as a way to prevent for example multiple threads to access the same resources at the same time. But what are those resources. I know that the resources can be a lot of things, like for example variables, but how do i define those variables that shouldnt be used at the same time by another thread? How does Mutex know which variables to "lock"? I dont understand how the compiler can know before executing the code what Mutex should lock between the functions mutex.lock and mutex.release.
The answer depends on how you want to think about it.
At a low level, a mutex locks nothing but itself. Two threads will never be allowed to lock the same mutex at the same time. End of story.
At a higher level, a mutex locks whatever data you want to lock with it. A mutex is a type of advisory lock. It's like a sign hanging on a door knob that says, "in-use, do not enter." It will keep out whoever respects the sign, but it has no actual power to keep anybody out.
If you have some data shared by several threads, and if you don't want any two threads to ever access* the data at the same time, then you can set up a mutex, and declare that, "None shall access these data unless they have the mutex locked." That declaration is what #Wyck called a "protocol" in a comment, above.
It's up to you to ensure that no thread in your program ever accesses the data without holding the mutex locked. I.e., it's up to you to ensure that your code obeys the protocol.
Also note! Nowhere did I mention "method" or "function." There's never any inherent benefit to locking a method or a function. It's always about the data that the method or the function accesses.
* "Access" doesn't just mean "update." If one thread merely tries to read the data while some other thread is in the middle of updating it, the reading thread could see an inconsistent or invalid snapshot of the data, and it could make arbitrarily bad decisions based on what it saw. The consequences could be fatal to the process, or worse.
Suppose we have a 100x100 matrix.
We have two threads that both access this matrix by reference (std::ref() in C++).
First thread is assigned rows 1-50, second 51-100. They both start working on their blocks and writing in to them.
There's no communication between the two threads and no chance that one thread will read/write something from the block assigned to the other thread.
In this particular case, it seems that using a mutex is redundant, am I correct?
Correct. If your do not share any data, there is no need for locking.
But you are having this matrix for a reason, you probably want to share it later. To do this you will need to enstablish some communication between threads probably using mutex and condition variable.
In math most of the time threads are used to offload some computations to other CPUs so that their results could be merged later. Merging is the part when synchronization is needed.
Does a mutex lock access to variables globally, or just those in the same scope as the locked mutex?
Note that I had to change the title of this question, as a lot of answers seem to be confused as to what I was asking. This is not a question about the scope (global or otherwise) of a "mutex object", it is a question about what scope of variables are "locked" by a mutex.
I believe the answer to be that a mutex locks access to all variables, ie; all global and locally scoped variables. (This is a result of a mutex blocking thread execution rather than access to specific regions of memory.)
I am attempting to understand Mutexes.
I was attempting to understand what sections of memory, or equivalently, which variables, a mutex would lock.
However my understanding from reading around online is that Mutexes do not lock memory, they lock (or block) simultaneously running threads which are all members of the same process. (Is that correct?)
https://mortoray.com/2011/12/16/how-does-a-mutex-work-what-does-it-cost/
So my question has become simply "are mutexes global?"
... or are they perhaps "generally speaking global, but the stackoverflow community can imagine some special cases in which they are not?"
When originally considering my question, I was interested in things such as those shown in the following example.
// both in global scope, this mutex will lock any global scope variable?
int global_variable;
mutex global_variable_mutex;
int main()
{
// one thread operates here and locks global_variable_mutex
// before reading/writing
{
// local variables in a loop
// launch some threads here, and wait later
int local_variable;
mutex local_variable_mutex;
// wait for launched thread to return
// does the mutex here prevent data races to the variable
// global_variable ???
}
}
One may assume this is pseudo-code for C++ or C, or any other similarly relevant language.
2021 edit: Question title has been changed to better reflect the contents of the question and associated answers.
So my question has become simply "are mutexes global?"
No. A mutex has a lock() and an unlock() method, and the only thing a mutex does is cause its lock() call (from any thread) not to return for as long as another thread has that mutex locked. When the thread that was holding the mutex locked calls unlock(), that is when the lock() call will return in the first thread. That way it is guaranteed that only a single thread will be holding the mutex-lock (i.e. executing in the region between its lock() call and its unlock() call) at any given time.
That's really all there is to it. So a mutex will effect only the threads that call lock() on that particular mutex, and nothing else.
Mutex stands for "Mutual Exclusion" - using one correctly ensures that only one thread at a time will ever be executing any "critical section" protected by the same mutex.
If there are some variables you only ever modify inside critical sections protected by the same mutex, your code doesn't have a data race. No matter whether they're global, static, or pointed to by different variables in different threads or any other way two threads might have a reference to the same object.
When I asked this question I was confused...
When I originally asked this question, I was confused because I had no conceputal understanding of how a "mutex" functions in hardware, whereas I did have a conceptual understanding of many other things that exist in hardware. (For example, how a compiler converts text into machine readable instructions. How cache and memory work. How graphics or coprocessors work. How network hardware and interfaces work, etc.)
Misconception 1: Mutex does not lock memory locations
When I first heard about Mutex, long before writing this question, I misunderstood a mutex to be a feature which locks regions of memory. (That region might be global.)
This is not what happens. Other threads and processes can continue to access main memory and cache if another thread locks a mutex. You can see immediatly why such a design would be inefficient, since it would block all other system processes, for the sake of synchronizing one.
Misconception 2: The scope in which a mutex object is declared is irrelevant
The context of this is C code, and C like languages where you have scoped blocks defined by { and } however the same logic could apply to Python where scope is defined by indentation.
I believe that this misunderstanding came from the existance of scoped_lock objects, and similar concepts where scope is used to manage the lifetime (locking and unlocking, resources) of a Mutex object.
One could also argue that since pointers and references to a Mutex can be passed around a program, the scope of a Mutex couldn't be used to define what variables are "locked" by a mutex.
For example, I misunderstood the following snippet:
{
int x, y, z;
Mutex m;
m.lock();
}
I believed that the above snippet would lock access to variables x, y and z from all other threads because x, y and z are declared in the same scope as the mutex m. This is also not how a mutex works.
Understanding 1: Mutex is typically implemented in hardware using atomic operations
Atomic operations are completely seperate from the concept of mutex, however they are a prerequisite to understanding how a mutex can exist, and how it can work.
When a CPU executes something like c = a + b, this involves a sequence of individual (atomic) operations. The word Atom is derived from Atomos meaning "indivisible", or "fundamental". (Atoms are divisible, but when theorists of Ancient Greece originally concieved of the objects from which matter was composed, they assumed that particles must be divisible down to some fundamental smallest possible component, which itself is indivisible. They were not too far wrong, since an atom is made from other fundamental particles which so far we understand to be indivisible.)
Returning to the point: c = a + b is something like the following:
load a from memory into register 1
load b from memory into register 2
do operation add: add contents of register 2 to register 1, result is in register 1
save register 1 to memory c
The add operation might take several clock cycles, and loading/saving to memory takes typically of order 100 clock cycles on modern x86 machines. However each operation is atomic in the sense that a single CPU instruction is being completed, and this instruction cannot be divided into any smaller step of smaller instructions. The instructions are themselves fundamental computing operations.
With that understood, there exists a set of atomic instructions which can do things such as:
load a value from memory increment it and save it to memory
load a value from memory decrement it and save it to memory
load a value from memory, compare it to a value which is already loaded into a register, and branch depending on the comparison result
Note that such operations are typically significantly slower than their non-atomic sequence counterparts. This is because optimizations such as pipelining are forfit when executing the above instructions. (I think?)
At this point my knowledge becomes a bit less accurate and more hand-wavey, but as far as I understand, these operations are typically implemented by having some digital logic inside the processor which blocks all other processes from running while these atomic operations (listed above) are executing.
Meaning: If there are 8 CPU cores running, if one core encounters an instruction like the above, it signals the other cores to stop running until it has finished that atomic operation. (It is at least something approximatly along these lines.)
Understanding 2: Actual mutex operation
Given the above, it is possible to implement a mutex using these atomic machine instructions. Other answers posted here suggest possible ways of doing it including something similar to reference counting. (Semaphore.)
How an acutal mutex in C++ works is this:
Each mutex object has a variable in memory associated with it, the value of this variable indicates whether a mutex is locked or not
This mutex variable is updated using the special atomic operations that a CPU supports for the purpose of allowing a mutex to be programmed
Elsewhere in memory there are some other variables/data which you want to protect/synchronize access to
This synchronization is done using the mutex variable/data
Before a thread reads/writes to some data/variable which needs to be accessed mutually exclusively by all threads which operate on it, that thread must first "lock" the special mutex data/variable
This is done using the atomic operations built into a CPU for the purpose of supporting mutex programming
So you see, the data which is "locked" and accessed mutually exclusively is entirely independent from the actual data used to store the state of the mutex.
If another thread wants to read/write the data which must be accessed mutually exclusively, it will try to lock the mutex. If the mutex is already locked, that means another thread has the right to access this data, and no other thread is permitted to, therefore this thread will typically go to sleep, and will be re-woken by the operating system when the mutex is next unlocked.
It is important to note the operating system thread (kernel) is critically involved in the mutex process. Typically, before a thread sleeps, it will tell the operating sytem that it wishes to be woken up again when the mutex is free. The operating system is also notified when other threads lock or unlock a mutex. Hence synchronization of information about the state of a mutex is passed via messages through the operating system kernel.
This is why writing a multiple thread OS kernel is (proabably) impossible (if not very difficult). I don't know if this has actually been done successfully. It sounds like a difficult problem which might be the subject of current CS research.
This is pretty much everything I know about the subject. Obviously my knowledge is not absolute...
Note: Feel free to correct my Greek history or x86 Machine Instruction knowledge in the comments section. No doubt not everything here is perfectly accurate.
As your question suggests, I assume you are asking your question independent of any programming language.
First it is important to understand what is a mutex and how it works? A mutex is a binary semaphore. Then what is a semaphore? A semaphore is an integer with following attributes,
You can initialize it into any permitted value (For a mutex, it is 1 or 0).
A thread can access the semaphore and it can increment or decrement its integer value.
When a thread decrements it,
If the result is positive or zero, that thread can continue its process.
If the result is negative, that thread will be waiting and the semaphore value will not be further decremented by any later thread.
If a thread increments it, (in that case semaphore value will be either positive or 0) and the result is 0, one of the waiting threads can continue execution.
So when there's a situation where a thread is trying to access a shared resource it will decrement the mutex value (from 0, so that other thread is waiting). And when it finishes, it will increment the mutex value (So that the waiting thread can continue). That's how the access control happens by means of a mutex (Binary semaphore).
I think you understand that your question is a non-applicable one here. As a simple answer for
So my question has become simply "are mutexes global?"
is simply NO.
A mutex has whatever scope you assign to it. It can be global or local again based on where and how you declare it. If for example you declare a mutex in global memory in a place where you can access it globally, then it is indeed global. If instead you declare it at function or private class scope level, then only that function or class will have access to it.
That said, in order to be useful for synchronization, the mutex needs to be declared in a scope that can be accessed by the threads needing to synchronize on it. Whether that's at global scope or some local scope depends on your program structure. I'd advise declaring it at the highest scope accessible to the threads but no higher.
In your particular example, the mutex is indeed global because you've declared it in global memory.
Locking doesn't operate on the variables it protects, it just works by giving threads a way to arrange that only one thread at a time will be doing something (like reading+writing a data structure). And that it will be finished, with memory effects visible, before the next thread's turn to read and maybe modify that data. (A readers+writers lock allows multiple readers but only one writer).
Any thread that can access the mutex object can lock / unlock it. The mutex object itself is a normal variable that you can put in any scope you want, even a local variable and then put a pointer to it somewhere that other threads can see. (Although normally you wouldn't do that.)
Mutex is named for "Mutual Exclusion" - using one correctly ensures that only one thread at a time will ever be executing any "critical section" (wikipedia) protected by the same mutex. Separate mutexes can allow different threads to hold different locks. Different functions or blocks that use the same mutex (normally because they access the same data) won't both run at once.
If there are some variables you only ever modify inside critical sections protected by the same mutex, those accesses won't be data race, and if you don't have other bugs, your code is thread-safe. No matter whether they're global, static, or pointed to by different variables in different threads or any other way two threads might have a reference to the same object.
If you write code that accesses shared data without taking a lock on a mutex, it might see a partially-updated value, especially for a struct with multiple pointers / integers. (And in C++, simultaneous accesses to non-atomic variables is undefined behaviour if they're not all reads).
Locking is a cooperative activity, normally nothing stops you from getting it wrong. If you're familiar with file locking, you may have heard of advisory vs. mandatory locks (the OS will deny open calls by other programs). Mutexes in multi-threaded programs are advisory; no memory protection or other hardware mechanism stops another thread from executing code that accesses the bytes of an object.
(At a low enough level, that's actually useful for lock-free atomics, especially with some control over ordering of those operations from memory barriers and/or release-store / acquire-load. And CPU cache hardware is up to the task of maintaining coherency from multiple accesses. But if you use locking, you don't have to worry about any of that. If you use locking incorrectly, understanding the possible symptoms might help identify that there is a locking problem.)
Some programs have phases where only a single thread is running, or only one that would need to touch certain variables, so enforced locking for every access to a variable isn't something that every language provides. (C++ std::atomic<T> is sort of like that; every access is as-if there was a lock/unlock of a lock protecting just that T object, except it's limited to operations that most CPUs can do without needing to lock/unlock a separate lock. Unless you use a large T, then there actually is a lock. Or if you use a memory order weaker than the default seq_cst, you can see orderings that wouldn't have been possible if all accesses acquiring/releasing locks.)
Besides, consistency between multiple variables is often important, so it matters that you hold one lock across multiple operations on multiple variables, or multiple members of the same struct.
Some tools can help detect code that doesn't respect a mutex while other threads are running, though, like clang -fsanitize=thread.
Let's say that I have a shared object that has a piece of code protected with a critical section and more than 1 thread are accessing the object for read/write. When a thread is inside the critical section the other threads are waiting. Once the thread gets out of the CS then the OS gives access to any of the waiting threads.
If I am confined to only one process, does the CS alone is a good protection for the shared object?
I ask because I have seen on the web that the right way to do it is to use a kernel object (ex: mutex, semaphone) to guard the CS. A thread wishing to use the shared resource needs to obtain the mutex/semaphore first with a WaitForSingleObject type of function. If a mutex is used then only one of then can access the resource. Once the mutex is obtained then the thread Enters the CS, does what is supposed to do, then Leave the CS and Releases the mutex. Then the OS allows any other waiting thread to obtain the mutex and so on and so forth.
But isn't is the same as using only the CS?
Also, using a mutex is supposed to be significantly slower than using a CS alone. The only problem I see of using only a CS is that if the thread crashes inside the CS then the other threads may never access the shared resource.
Is there any other reason why this approach is better?
thanks in advance
It sounds like you're discussing some Windows-specific terminology in a way that's getting it mixed up with some general computer science terminology.
In computer science the term "critical section" is used for areas of code that must run exclusively (usually due to data sharing). In Windows, there's a synchronization object called CRITICAL_SECTION that can be used to provide exclusive access to areas of execution. Another attribute of a CRITICAL_SECTION object on Windows is that it is limited to being used within a single process.
In computer science, the term 'mutex' is often used to describe an object that can be used to provide synchronization among parallel or cncurrent threads of execution. In Windows, there is also a mutex object which can be created with the CreateMutex() function (which returns a HANDLE representing the mutex). That object can be used to synchronize access among threads in the same or different processes, so it can be used similar to a CRITICAL_SECTION (but with different APIs) in many ways. If you want to synchronized threads of execution that are in different processes, a mutex object can be used, while a CRITICAL_SECTION object cannot.
So to answer your question (I think), if you are only concerned with protecting a critical section among threads that are part of the same process, a CRITICAL_SECTION object should be adequate. A mutex object can be used instead, but it may be somewhat less performant. There should be no need to use both types of objects
If I have the following psuedocode:
sharedVariable = somevalue;
CreateThread(threadWhichUsesSharedVariable);
Is it theoretically possible for a multicore CPU to execute code in threadWhichUsesSharedVariable() which reads the value of sharedVariable before the parent thread writes to it? For full theoretical avoidance of even the remote possibility of a race condition, should the code look like this instead:
sharedVariableMutex.lock();
sharedVariable = somevalue;
sharedVariableMutex.unlock();
CreateThread(threadWhichUsesSharedVariable);
Basically I want to know if the spawning of a thread explicitly linearizes the CPU at that point, and is guaranteed to do so.
I know that the overhead of thread creation probably takes enough time that this would never matter in practice, but the perfectionist in me is afraid of the theoretical race condition. In extreme conditions, where some threads or cores might be severely lagged and others are running fast and efficiently, I can imagine that it might be remotely possible for the order of execution (or memory access) to be reversed unless there was a lock.
I would say that your pseudocode is safe on any correctly functioning
multiprocessor system. The C++ compiler cannot generate a call to
CreateThread() before sharedVariable has received a correct value
unless it can prove to itself that doing so is safe. You are guaranteed
that your single-threaded code executes equivalently to a completely
non-reordered linear execution path. Any system that "time warps" the
thread creation ahead of the variable assignment is seriously broken.
I don't think declaring sharedVariable as volatile does anything
useful in this case.
Given your example and if you were using Java then the answer would be "No". In Java it is not possible for the thread to spawn and read your value before the assignment operation is complete. In some other languages this might be a different story.
"Variables shared between multiple threads (e.g., instance variables of objects) have atomic assignment guaranteed by the Java language specification for all data types except longs and doubles... If a method consists solely of a single variable access or assignment, there is no need to make it synchronized for thread-safety, and every reason not to do so for performance."
reference
If your double or long is declared volatile, then you are also guaranteed that the assignment is an atomic operation.
Update:
Your example is going to work in C++ just like it works in Java. Theoretically there is no way that the thread spawning will begin or complete before the assignment, even with Out of Order Execution.
Note that your example is VERY specific and in any other case it is recommended that you ensure the shared resource is protected properly. The new C++ standard is coming out with a lot of atomic stuff, so you could declare your variable as atomic and the assignment operation will be visible to all threads without the need of locking. CAS (compare and set) is a your next best option.