虽然互斥量和信号量被用作同步原语，但它们之间有很大的区别。 在互斥锁的情况下，只有锁定或获得互斥锁的线程才能解锁它。 在信号量的情况下，等待信号量的线程可以由另一个线程发出信号。 一些操作系统支持在进程之间使用互斥量和信号量。通常使用是在共享内存中创建的。

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)。

Mutex is used to protect the sensitive code and data, semaphore is used to synchronization.You also can have practical use with protect the sensitive code, but there might be a risk that release the protection by the other thread by operation V.So The main difference between bi-semaphore and mutex is the ownership.For instance by toilet , Mutex is like that one can enter the toilet and lock the door, no one else can enter until the man get out, bi-semaphore is like that one can enter the toilet and lock the door, but someone else could enter by asking the administrator to open the door, it's ridiculous.

关于这个主题的好文章:

互斥量与信号量——第1部分:信号量 互斥量与信号量——第2部分:互斥量 互斥量与信号量——第3部分(最后一部分):互斥问题

来自第二部分:

The mutex is similar to the principles of the binary semaphore with one significant difference: the principle of ownership. Ownership is the simple concept that when a task locks (acquires) a mutex only it can unlock (release) it. If a task tries to unlock a mutex it hasn’t locked (thus doesn’t own) then an error condition is encountered and, most importantly, the mutex is not unlocked. If the mutual exclusion object doesn't have ownership then, irrelevant of what it is called, it is not a mutex.

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/