互斥锁

Until recently, the only sleeping lock in the kernel was the semaphore. Most users of semaphores instantiated a semaphore with a count of one and treated them as a mutual exclusion lock—a sleeping version of the spin-lock. Unfortunately, semaphores are rather generic and do not impose any usage constraints. This makes them useful for managing exclusive access in obscure situations, such as complicated dances between the kernel and userspace. But it also means that simpler locking is harder to do, and the lack of enforced rules makes any sort of automated debugging or constraint enforcement impossible. Seeking a simpler sleeping lock, the kernel developers introduced the mutex.Yes, as you are now accustomed to, that is a confusing name. Let’s clarify.The term “mutex” is a generic name to refer to any sleeping lock that enforces mutual exclusion, such as a semaphore with a usage count of one. In recent Linux kernels, the proper noun “mutex” is now also a specific type of sleeping lock that implements mutual exclusion.That is, a mutex is a mutex.

互斥锁的简单性和效率来自于它在信号量要求之外强加给用户的附加约束。信号量是按照Dijkstra的原始设计来实现最基本的行为，而互斥锁则不同，它的用例更严格、更窄: n一次只能有一个任务持有互斥锁。也就是说，互斥锁的使用计数总是1。

Whoever locked a mutex must unlock it. That is, you cannot lock a mutex in one context and then unlock it in another. This means that the mutex isn’t suitable for more complicated synchronizations between kernel and user-space. Most use cases, however, cleanly lock and unlock from the same context. Recursive locks and unlocks are not allowed. That is, you cannot recursively acquire the same mutex, and you cannot unlock an unlocked mutex. A process cannot exit while holding a mutex. A mutex cannot be acquired by an interrupt handler or bottom half, even with mutex_trylock(). A mutex can be managed only via the official API: It must be initialized via the methods described in this section and cannot be copied, hand initialized, or reinitialized.

[1] Linux内核开发，第三版Robert Love

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!,

使用“互斥”就不会发生这种情况。没有其他线程可以解锁锁 在你的帖子里 使用“二进制信号量”可以实现这种情况。任何其他线程都可以解锁 线程中的锁

因此，如果您非常注重使用二进制信号量而不是互斥量，那么在锁定和解锁的“作用域”时应该非常小心。我的意思是，每个触及每个锁的控制流都应该触及一个解锁调用，也不应该有任何“第一次解锁”，而应该总是“第一次锁定”。

互斥对象有所有权，不像信号量。尽管在互斥量范围内的任何线程都可以获得一个未锁定的互斥量，并锁定对同一关键代码段的访问，但只有锁定了互斥量的线程才应该解锁它。

厕所的例子是一个有趣的类比:

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

The basic issue is concurrency. There is more than one flow of control. Think about two processes using a shared memory. Now only one process can access the shared memory at a time. If more than one process accesses the shared memory at a time, the contents of shared memory would get corrupted. It is like a railroad track. Only one train can run on it, else there would be an accident.So there is a signalling mechanism, which a driver checks. If the signal is green, the train can go and if it is red it has to wait to use the track. Similarly in case of shared memory, there is a binary semaphore. If the semaphore is 1, a process acquires it (makes it 0) and goes ahead and accesses it. If the semaphore is 0, the process waits. The functionality the binary semaphore has to provide is mutual exclusion (or mutex, in short) so that only one of the many concurrent entities (process or thread) mutually excludes others. It is a plus that we have counting semaphores, which help in synchronizing multiple instances of a resource.

互斥是信号量提供的基本功能。现在在线程上下文中，我们可能有不同的名称和语法。但基本概念是相同的:如何在并发编程中保持代码和数据的完整性。在我看来，像所有权和相关检查这样的东西是由实现提供的改进。

它们不是一回事。它们有不同的用途! 虽然这两种类型的信号量都有一个满/空状态，并且使用相同的API，但它们的用法非常不同。

互斥信号量 互斥信号量用于保护共享资源(数据结构、文件等)。

互斥信号量由接收它的任务“拥有”。如果Task B尝试semGive一个当前由Task a持有的互斥锁，Task B的调用将返回一个错误并失败。

互斥对象总是使用以下顺序:

  - SemTake
  - Critical Section
  - SemGive

这里有一个简单的例子:

  Thread A                     Thread B
   Take Mutex
     access data
     ...                        Take Mutex  <== Will block
     ...
   Give Mutex                     access data  <== Unblocks
                                  ...
                                Give Mutex

二进制信号量 二进制信号量解决了一个完全不同的问题:

任务B被挂起等待某些事情发生(例如传感器被绊倒)。 传感器跳闸和中断服务程序运行。它需要通知任务的行程。 任务B应运行并对传感器跳闸采取适当的操作。然后继续等待。

   Task A                      Task B
   ...                         Take BinSemaphore   <== wait for something
   Do Something Noteworthy
   Give BinSemaphore           do something    <== unblocks

注意，对于二进制信号量，B获取信号量，a给出信号量是可以的。 同样，二进制信号量不能保护资源不被访问。信号量的给予和获取从根本上是分离的。 对于同一个任务来说，对同一个二进制信号量的给予和获取通常没有什么意义。