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。

它们的同步语义非常不同:

互斥对象允许对给定资源的序列化访问，即多个线程等待一个锁，一次一个，正如前面所说，线程拥有锁，直到锁完成:只有这个特定的线程可以解锁它。 二进制信号量是一个值为0和1的计数器:任务阻塞在它上，直到任何任务执行sem_post。信号量宣布资源可用，并提供等待机制，直到发出可用信号。

因此，可以将互斥锁视为在任务之间传递的令牌，将信号量视为交通红灯(它向某人发出信号，表示可以继续进行)。

答案可能取决于目标操作系统。例如，我所熟悉的至少一个RTOS实现允许对单个OS互斥量进行多个连续的“get”操作，只要它们都来自同一个线程上下文中。在允许另一个线程获得互斥量之前，多个get必须被相等数量的put替换。这与二进制信号量不同，对于二进制信号量，无论线程上下文如何，一次只允许一个get。

这种互斥锁背后的思想是，通过一次只允许一个上下文修改数据来保护对象。即使线程获得了互斥量，然后调用进一步修改对象的函数(并在自己的操作周围获得/放置保护互斥量)，这些操作仍然应该是安全的，因为它们都发生在单个线程下。

{
    mutexGet();  // Other threads can no longer get the mutex.

    // Make changes to the protected object.
    // ...

    objectModify();  // Also gets/puts the mutex.  Only allowed from this thread context.

    // Make more changes to the protected object.
    // ...

    mutexPut();  // Finally allows other threads to get the mutex.
}

当然，在使用此特性时，必须确保单个线程中的所有访问都是安全的!

我不确定这种方法有多普遍，或者它是否适用于我所熟悉的系统之外。有关这种互斥锁的示例，请参阅ThreadX RTOS。

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

互斥锁只能由获得它的线程释放。 二进制信号量可以由任何线程(或进程)发出信号。

因此，信号量更适合于一些同步问题，如生产者-消费者。

在Windows上，二进制信号量更像事件对象而不是互斥对象。

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