I read one of the differences between semaphore and mutex is in case of mutex the process/thread (which ever is having the lock) can only release the lock. But in the case of the semaphore any other process can release the semaphore. My doubt arises when a process that does not have the semaphore with it can release the semaphore. What is the use of having a semaphore?
Let's say I have two processes A and B. Assume process A is having a semaphore with it and executing some critical task. Now let us say process B sends a signal to release the semaphore. In this scenario, will process A release the semaphore even if it is executing some critical task?
You are making half-sense. It is not about ownership. Partner-release in semaphores (and mutexes) is usable, for instance, in my favorite interview question of thread ping-pong. As a matter of fact, I have specifically tried to partner-release a mutex on 3 implementations available to me at a time (Linux/Solaris/AIX) and partner-release did work for mutexes as expected - i.e. mutex was successsfully released and threads blocking on it resumed execution. However, this is, of course, prohibited by Posix.
I think you might be confused on the whole set of differences between a semaphore and a mutex. A mutex provides mutual exclusion. A semaphore counts until it reaches a level where it starts excluding. A semaphore that counted to one would give similar semantics to a mutex though.
A good example would be a television set. Only so many people can watch the same television set, so protecting it with a semaphore would make sense. Anyone can stop watching the television. The remote control for the television can only be operated by one person at a time though, so you could protect it with a mutex.
Some reading...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_exclusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_%28programming%29
"Let's say I have two processes A and B. Assume process A is having a semaphore with it and executing some critical task. Now let us say process B sends a signal to release the semaphore. In this scenario, will process A release the semaphore even if it is executing some critical task?"
One key point to note here is the role of OS kernel. Process B can't send a signal to Process A 'to release the semaphore'. What it can do is request the kernel to give it access to the resource. Process A had requested the kernel and the kernel granted it access to the resource.
Now process A, after it finishes its job, will let the kernel know that it is done with the resource and then kernel grants access to B.
"My doubt arises when a process that does not have the semaphore with it can release the semaphore. What is the use of having a semaphore?"
The key difference between a mutex and a semaphore is, a semaphore serializes access to multiple instances of a resource. Mutex does the same when there is one instance of the resource.
A count is maintained by kernel in case of semaphore and mutex is a special case where the count is 1.
Consider the processes as customers waiting in line at a bank.
The use of semaphore is analogous to the case where there are multiple tellers serving the customers. Usage of mutex is analogous to the case where there is just one teller.
Say there are processes A, B and C that need concurrent access to a resource (lock, file or a data structure in memory, etc.). Further suppose there are 2 instances of the resource. So at most two processes can be granted access at a time.
Process A requests access to an instance of the resource following the required semantics. This request to the kernel involves data structures to identify the resource and maximum number of instances as 2. kernel creates the semaphore with a count of 2, grants A access to the resource and decrements the count to 1, because now only one other process can get access.
Now process B requests access to the resource by following the same semantics. Kernel grants it access and decrements the count to 0.
Now process C requests access, but kernel keeps it in waiting state, because count is 0 and no more than 2 processes can get concurrent access.
Process A is done with the resource and lets kernel know. Kernel notices this and grants access to process C that has been waiting.
In case of mutex, kernel grants access to the resource only one process at a time.
A normal binary semaphore is basically used for synchronization. However, the mutex is for exclusive access to a resource. A mutex is a special variant of semaphore that allows only one locker at a time and with more stringency on ownership than a normal semaphore such as the mutex should be released only by the thread that acquired it. Also, please note that in case of pthreads, fast mutex may not check for this error related to ownership, whereas the error checking mutex shall return error.
For the query related to 2 process A and B, the Process A shall intimate via kernel that it is done with its critical work so that the resource can be made available for waiting processes like B.
You could find some related information in this link too :
When should we use mutex and when should we use semaphore
There is no such thing as "having" a semaphore. Semaphores don't have ownership like mutexes do. The code you describe would simply be buggy. Mutexes won't work if your code is buggy either.
Consider the most classic example of a semaphore -- allowing one train at a time on a section of track. You could implement this with a mutex if the train is a thread. The train would lock the track mutex before going on the track and unlock it after leaving the track.
But what if the train itself is multi-threaded? Which thread should own the track?
And what if the signalling devices are the threads, not the train? Here, the signalling device that detects the train entering the track has to lock the track while the signalling device that detects the train leaving the track has to unlock it.
Mutexes are suitable for cases where there is something that is owned by a particular thread for a short period of time. That thread can "own" the mutex. Semaphores are useful for cases where there is no thread to own anything or nothing for the thread to own.
Related
According to this link, How do I recover a semaphore when the process that decremented it to zero crashes? it seems that there is no robust semaphore inter-process, and the author finally chose filelock, which is guaranteed to be released properly by the system-level or kernel-level control.
But I also found robust mutex provided by pthread https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/pthread_mutexattr_setrobust.3.html why there is no something like robust semaphore?
And an extra question: what robust alternatives we have regarding IPC synchronization? filelock seems to be the best one. I think providing such mechanism is not that difficult from system or kernel level,since they do implement fielock. then why they don't provide some other approaches?
When you use a mutex, it can be acquired by at most one thread at a time. Therefore, once the mutex has been acquired, the owner can write its process ID or thread ID (depending on the system) into the mutex, and future users can detect whether the owner is still alive or not.
However, a semaphore is ultimately a counter. It is possible that different threads may increment or decrement the counter. There isn't intrinsically one resource that is being shared; there could instead be multiple resources.
For example, if we're trying to limit ourselves to a certain number of outgoing connections (say, 8), then we could create a semaphore with that value and allow threads to acquire it (wait) to make a connection, and then increment it (post) when they're done. If we never want to make more than 8 connections at once, the semaphore will never block; we'll have acquired it successfully each time, even though there's no exclusion.
In such a situation, there isn't going to be space inside the semaphore to store every process's thread ID. Using memory allocation is tricky because that code needs to be synchronized independently, and even if that could be solved, it means that a semaphore value would have at least O(N) performance when acquiring the semaphore. I work on a production system that uses hundreds of threads, so you can imagine the performance problems if we had such a semaphore design.
There are other solutions which you can use when you need robustness, such as file locking or a robust mutex in a shared memory segment, but none of them have the same properties as a semaphore. Therefore, any discussion of what primitives should be used instead depends on the particular needs of the situation (which should probably be placed in a new question).
So I'm trying to use mutex_init(), mutex_lock(), mutex_unlock() for thread synchronization.
I am currently trying to schedule threads in a round robin fashion(but more than 1 thread could be running at a time) and I set the current state of a thread to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, followed by waking up another thread whose PID, I have in a list.
I need to iterate over this list for my logic.
As I understand it, I need to lock this list as I access its elements, or another thread might miss a new entry while I'm making changes to it. Also, as one mutex has locked a resource, no other mutex can unlock it, until the original mutex releases it.
But, I'm still not sure if I'm locking it correctly. (I release the lock before I call schedule(), and re-lock after that)
I declare a mutex locally within a thread and lock the list. After my current thread locks
mutex_lock(&lock);
and I iterate over the list, till I find something(or ends if it doesn't find anything), then unlocks.
mutex_unlock(&lock);
I assume locking while I iterate is legal. I have never seen examples of this though.
Also, is it normal for the process to have a state of (TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) while it holds a mutex lock?
EDIT : I am adding some more information based on the answer below.
It is possible my program may be run on a virtual machine with a single core. Therefore, I do not want to risk infinite polling using spin_lock().
I am trying to maintain scheduling between threads that have a certain id. For example if there are 4 threads. 2 in set 'A' and 2 in set 'B'. I allow only 1 thread to run in each set. But I switch between threads in a given set. However, a thread in set 'A' should not switch to any thread in set 'B'
(I know the kernel scheduler wont be perfect, so an approximate switching will do).
My Reasoning for TASK_STATE's:
1) Initial thread that gets created is running.
2) If another thread in the same set is running (and this one hasn't executed for a given time). Set other thread to TASK_INTERRUPTIPLE, while calling schedule(); Note: There can be more than 2 threads in each set, but let's keep it simple by considering only 2 for now.
3) If it has executed for enough time, set this task to TASK_INTERRUPTIPLE, set the other task in the same set to TASK_RUNNING, while calling schedule();
All this logic happens while I am accessing certain data structures which are locked by a (now) Global Mutex. I unlock the mutex just before I call schedule(), and instantly re-lock afterward. After my logic part is done, I completely unlock the mutex.
Is there anything fundamentally wrong with the approach?
As I understand it, I need to lock this list as I access its elements
Yes, that is true. But if you use a mutex, you're going to be really sad because a call to lock/unlock is a call to the scheduler. Therefore, calling it from inside the scheduler should result in deadlock. What you need to do depends on if your processor is multi-core or (the mythical) single-core. (Is this a virtual system?) On a single-core processor you can disable interrupts. On a multi-core processor, disabling interrupts is not sufficient (it only disables interrupts for that one core, and another core may still be interrupted). The simplest thing to do on a multi-core is to use a spinlock. Unlike the mutex, both of these locking mechanisms can be unlocked from different threads.
I set the current state of a thread to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
Is the thread being taken off the CPU? If so, it's not running, so I suspect that TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE is the wrong state. It would be helpful if you could list the possible states for me or if you could describe what the state is supposed to indicate. Because to me "TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE" sounds like a running task.
I declare a mutex locally within a thread and lock the list
Local mutexes are a red flag! The resource you are locking should be protected by a mutex with the same scope. If the list is global, it should have a global mutex to protect it. Threads that want to use the list must first acquire its mutex. Of course, as I already talked about, you probably want to use a different kind of locking to protect the list of ready-to-run processes.
I assume locking while I iterate is legal
It is perfectly legal (assuming of course that your mutual exclusion scheme is bug-free). In fact, it's required. If another thread were allowed to, for example, remove a node from the list while you were reading it, you could end up dereferencing a deleted node.
Also, is it normal for the process to have a state of TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE while it holds a mutex lock?
No, not while it holds the lock if the process is currently running on a CPU. A mutex is available to user code. If holding a mutex made the process uninterruptible, that would mean that a process could hijack the system by simply locking a mutex and never releasing it. Now, you will find that the lock and unlock functions need to be uninterruptible on a single-core processor. However, it doesn't make sense to set the state for the process because it's actually the scheduler that must not be interrupted.
I am doing experiments with IPC, especially with Mutex, Semaphore and Spin Lock.
What I learnt is Mutex is used for Asynchronous Locking (with sleeping (as per theories I read on NET)) Mechanism, Semaphore are Synchronous Locking (with Signaling and Sleeping) Mechanism, and Spin Locks are Synchronous but Non-sleeping Mechanism.
Can anyone help me to clarify these stuff deeply?
And another doubt is about Mutex, when I wrote program with thread & mutex, while one thread is running another thread is not in Sleep state but it continuously tries to acquire the Lock. So Mutex is sleeping or Non-sleeping???
First, remember the goal of these 'synchronizing objects' :
These objects were designed to provide an efficient and coherent use of 'shared data' between more than 1 thread among 1 process or from different processes.
These objects can be 'acquired' or 'released'.
That is it!!! End of story!!!
Now, if it helps to you, let me put my grain of sand:
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, within one process or 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, within one process or among different processes. 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).
Here is a great explanation of the difference between semaphores and mutexes:
http://blog.feabhas.com/2009/09/mutex-vs-semaphores-–-part-1-semaphores/
The short answer has to do with ownership at least with binary semaphores but I suggest you read the entire article.
Mutex is the locking mechanism while the semaphore is the wait and signal mechanism.
Both have different applications.
There is a very good explanation given by the IISC professor.
Link for video
What are the major differences between a Monitor and a Semaphore?
A Monitor is an object designed to be accessed from multiple threads. The member functions or methods of a monitor object will enforce mutual exclusion, so only one thread may be performing any action on the object at a given time. If one thread is currently executing a member function of the object then any other thread that tries to call a member function of that object will have to wait until the first has finished.
A Semaphore is a lower-level object. You might well use a semaphore to implement a monitor. A semaphore essentially is just a counter. When the counter is positive, if a thread tries to acquire the semaphore then it is allowed, and the counter is decremented. When a thread is done then it releases the semaphore, and increments the counter.
If the counter is already zero when a thread tries to acquire the semaphore then it has to wait until another thread releases the semaphore. If multiple threads are waiting when a thread releases a semaphore then one of them gets it. The thread that releases a semaphore need not be the same thread that acquired it.
A monitor is like a public toilet. Only one person can enter at a time. They lock the door to prevent anyone else coming in, do their stuff, and then unlock it when they leave.
A semaphore is like a bike hire place. They have a certain number of bikes. If you try and hire a bike and they have one free then you can take it, otherwise you must wait. When someone returns their bike then someone else can take it. If you have a bike then you can give it to someone else to return --- the bike hire place doesn't care who returns it, as long as they get their bike back.
Following explanation actually explains how wait() and signal() of monitor differ from P and V of semaphore.
The wait() and signal() operations on condition variables in a monitor are similar to P and V operations on counting semaphores.
A wait statement can block a process's execution, while a signal statement can cause another process to be unblocked. However, there are some differences between them. When a process executes a P operation, it does not necessarily block that process because the counting semaphore may be greater than zero. In contrast, when a wait statement is executed, it always blocks the process. When a task executes a V operation on a semaphore, it either unblocks a task waiting on that semaphore or increments the semaphore counter if there is no task to unlock. On the other hand, if a process executes a signal statement when there is no other process to unblock, there is no effect on the condition variable. Another difference between semaphores and monitors is that users awaken by a V operation can resume execution without delay. Contrarily, users awaken by a signal operation are restarted only when the monitor is unlocked. In addition, a monitor solution is more structured than the one with semaphores because the data and procedures are encapsulated in a single module and that the mutual exclusion is provided automatically by the implementation.
Link: here for further reading. Hope it helps.
Semaphore allows multiple threads (up to a set number) to access a shared object. Monitors allow mutually exclusive access to a shared object.
Monitor
Semaphore
One Line Answer:
Monitor: controls only ONE thread at a time can execute in the monitor. (need to acquire lock to execute the single thread)
Semaphore: a lock that protects a shared resource. (need to acquire the lock to access resource)
A semaphore is a signaling mechanism used to coordinate between threads. Example: One thread is downloading files from the internet and another thread is analyzing the files. This is a classic producer/consumer scenario. The producer calls signal() on the semaphore when a file is downloaded. The consumer calls wait() on the same semaphore in order to be blocked until the signal indicates a file is ready. If the semaphore is already signaled when the consumer calls wait, the call does not block. Multiple threads can wait on a semaphore, but each signal will only unblock a single thread.
A counting semaphore keeps track of the number of signals. E.g. if the producer signals three times in a row, wait() can be called three times without blocking. A binary semaphore does not count but just have the "waiting" and "signalled" states.
A mutex (mutual exclusion lock) is a lock which is owned by a single thread. Only the thread which have acquired the lock can realease it again. Other threads which try to acquire the lock will be blocked until the current owner thread releases it. A mutex lock does not in itself lock anything - it is really just a flag. But code can check for ownership of a mutex lock to ensure that only one thread at a time can access some object or resource.
A monitor is a higher-level construct which uses an underlying mutex lock to ensure thread-safe access to some object. Unfortunately the word "monitor" is used in a few different meanings depending on context and platform and context, but in Java for example, a monitor is a mutex lock which is implicitly associated with an object, and which can be invoked with the synchronized keyword. The synchronized keyword can be applied to a class, method or block and ensures only one thread can execute the code at a time.
Semaphore :
Using a counter or flag to control access some shared resources in a concurrent system, implies use of Semaphore.
Example:
A counter to allow only 50 Passengers to acquire the 50 seats (Shared resource) of any Theatre/Bus/Train/Fun ride/Classroom. And to allow a new Passenger only if someone vacates a seat.
A binary flag indicating the free/occupied status of any Bathroom.
Traffic lights are good example of flags. They control flow by regulating passage of vehicles on Roads (Shared resource)
Flags only reveal the current state of Resource, no count or any other information on the waiting or running objects on the resource.
Monitor :
A Monitor synchronizes access to an Object by communicating with threads interested in the object, asking them to acquire access or wait for some condition to become true.
Example:
A Father may acts as a monitor for her daughter, allowing her to date only one guy at a time.
A school teacher using baton to allow only one child to speak in the class.
Lastly a technical one, transactions (via threads) on an Account object synchronized to maintain integrity.
When a semaphore is used to guard a critical region, there is no direct relationship between the semaphore and the data being protected. This is part of the reason why semaphores may be dispersed around the code, and why it is easy to forget to call wait or notify, in which case the result will be, respectively, to violate mutual exclusion or to lock the resource permanently.
In contrast, niehter of these bad things can happen with a monitor. A monitor is tired directly to the data (it encapsulates the data) and, because the monitor operations are atomic actions, it is impossible to write code that can access the data without calling the entry protocol. The exit protocol is called automatically when the monitor operation is completed.
A monitor has a built-in mechanism for condition synchronisation in the form of condition variable before proceeding. If the condition is not satisfied, the process has to wait until it is notified of a change in the condition. When a process is waiting for condition synchronisation, the monitor implementation takes care of the mutual exclusion issue, and allows another process to gain access to the monitor.
Taken from The Open University M362 Unit 3 "Interacting process" course material.
What is the real difference Conceptually and Implementation point of view between
Semophore, Mutex, Monitor?
We say Semophores are resource allocation counter... OK I understand this..
For Mutex we say mutex are Binary Semophore... Gosh what's that???
Monitor guards the entry point for an objects... i.e. only one thread can acquire it and can run one of it's guarded entry points??? Then what are mutex for??
Semaphores are a locking mechanism, iirc they can conceptually be configured to allow multiple aceess to an object; e.g. Access three at a time, four at a time, etc.
Mutex are a special case of a semaphore for ensuring mutual exclusion, I.e. only one can access the protected resource at any given time.
It is important to note that neither the semaphore nor mutex ensure strict ordering when waiting for access to the shared resource. When the resource becomes accessible some waiting thread will gain access but no garuantees are made about which thread that will be. Statistically, eventually all threads will (must) gain access.
A monitor enforces a precedence on the waiting threads/processes by queueing them in a particular order, not necessarily how they arrive. An operating system is an example of a monitor - ensuring a single process has the CPU at any given time.