互斥量是任何想要解决临界区问题的算法都必须遵循的标准，而二进制信号量本身是一个可以取0和1值的变量。

虽然二进制信号量可以用作互斥量，但互斥量是一个更具体的用例，因为只有锁定了互斥量的进程才应该解锁它。这种所有权限制使我们有可能对以下情况提供保护:

意外释放 递归死锁 任务死亡死锁

这些限制并不总是存在，因为它们降低了速度。在代码开发期间，您可以暂时启用这些检查。

例如，你可以在互斥锁中启用错误检查属性。错误检查互斥量返回EDEADLK，如果你试图锁定同一个互斥量两次，如果你解锁了一个不是你的互斥量，返回EPERM。

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);

一旦初始化，我们可以将这些检查放在我们的代码中，就像这样:

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

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”。

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。

既然上面的答案都不能消除困惑，这里有一个答案可以消除我的困惑。

Strictly speaking, a mutex is a locking mechanism used to synchronize access to a resource. Only one task (can be a thread or process based on OS abstraction) can acquire the mutex. It means there will be ownership associated with mutex, and only the owner can release the lock (mutex). Semaphore is signaling mechanism (“I am done, you can carry on” kind of signal). For example, if you are listening songs (assume it as one task) on your mobile and at the same time your friend called you, an interrupt will be triggered upon which an interrupt service routine (ISR) will signal the call processing task to wakeup.

来源:http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/mutex-vs-semaphore/

Mutex uses a locking mechanism i.e. if a process wants to use a resource then it locks the resource, uses it and then release it. But on the other hand, semaphore uses a signalling mechanism where wait() and signal() methods are used to show if a process is releasing a resource or taking a resource. A mutex is an object but semaphore is an integer variable. In semaphore, we have wait() and signal() functions. But in mutex, there is no such function. A mutex object allows multiple process threads to access a single shared resource but only one at a time. On the other hand, semaphore allows multiple process threads to access the finite instance of the resource until available. In mutex, the lock can be acquired and released by the same process at a time. But the value of the semaphore variable can be modified by any process that needs some resource but only one process can change the value at a time.

一本有用的书，我从这里学习和复制