Semaphore vs. Monitors - what's the difference?

Question

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)

Semaphore :

Using a counter or flag to control access some shared resources in a concurrent system, implies use of Semaphore.

Example:

1. 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.
2. A binary flag indicating the free/occupied status of any Bathroom.
3. 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:

1. A Father may acts as a monitor for her daughter, allowing her to date only one guy at a time.
2. A school teacher using baton to allow only one child to speak in the class.
3. 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.