Spinlock versus Semaphore

Question

Spinlock and semaphore differ mainly in four things:

1. What they are
A spinlock is one possible implementation of a lock, namely one that is implemented by busy waiting ("spinning"). A semaphore is a generalization of a lock (or, the other way around, a lock is a special case of a semaphore). Usually, but not necessarily, spinlocks are only valid within one process whereas semaphores can be used to synchronize between different processes, too.

A lock works for mutual exclusion, that is one thread at a time can acquire the lock and proceed with a "critical section" of code. Usually, this means code that modifies some data shared by several threads.
A semaphore has a counter and will allow itself being acquired by one or several threads, depending on what value you post to it, and (in some implementations) depending on what its maximum allowable value is.

Insofar, one can consider a lock a special case of a semaphore with a maximum value of 1.

2. What they do
As stated above, a spinlock is a lock, and therefore a mutual exclusion (strictly 1 to 1) mechanism. It works by repeatedly querying and/or modifying a memory location, usually in an atomic manner. This means that acquiring a spinlock is a "busy" operation that possibly burns CPU cycles for a long time (maybe forever!) while it effectively achieves "nothing".
The main incentive for such an approach is the fact that a context switch has an overhead equivalent to spinning a few hundred (or maybe thousand) times, so if a lock can be acquired by burning a few cycles spinning, this may overall very well be more efficient. Also, for realtime applications it may not be acceptable to block and wait for the scheduler to come back to them at some far away time in the future.

A semaphore, by contrast, either does not spin at all, or only spins for a very short time (as an optimization to avoid the syscall overhead). If a semaphore cannot be acquired, it blocks, giving up CPU time to a different thread that is ready to run. This may of course mean that a few milliseconds pass before your thread is scheduled again, but if this is no problem (usually it isn't) then it can be a very efficient, CPU-conservative approach.

3. How they behave in presence of congestion
It is a common misconception that spinlocks or lock-free algorithms are "generally faster", or that they are only useful for "very short tasks" (ideally, no synchronization object should be held for longer than absolutely necessary, ever).
The one important difference is how the different approaches behave in presence of congestion.

A well-designed system normally has low or no congestion (this means not all threads try to acquire the lock at the exact same time). For example, one would normally not write code that acquires a lock, then loads half a megabyte of zip-compressed data from the network, decodes and parses the data, and finally modifies a shared reference (append data to a container, etc.) before releasing the lock. Instead, one would acquire the lock only for the purpose of accessing the shared resource.
Since this means that there is considerably more work outside the critical section than inside it, naturally the likelihood for a thread being inside the critical section is relatively low, and thus few threads are contending for the lock at the same time. Of course every now and then two threads will try to acquire the lock at the same time (if this couldn't happen you wouldn't need a lock!), but this is rather the exception than the rule in a "healthy" system.

In such a case, a spinlock greatly outperforms a semaphore because if there is no lock congestion, the overhead of acquiring the spinlock is a mere dozen cycles as compared to hundreds/thousands of cycles for a context switch or 10-20 million cycles for losing the remainder of a time slice.

On the other hand, given high congestion, or if the lock is being held for lengthy periods (sometimes you just can't help it!), a spinlock will burn insane amounts of CPU cycles for achieving nothing.
A semaphore (or mutex) is a much better choice in this case, as it allows a different thread to run useful tasks during that time. Or, if no other thread has something useful to do, it allows the operating system to throttle down the CPU and reduce heat / conserve energy.

Also, on a single-core system, a spinlock will be quite inefficient in presence of lock congestion, as a spinning thread will waste its complete time waiting for a state change that cannot possibly happen (not until the releasing thread is scheduled, which isn't happening while the waiting thread is running!). Therefore, given any amount of contention, acquiring the lock takes around 1 1/2 time slices in the best case (assuming the releasing thread is the next one being scheduled), which is not very good behaviour.

4. How they're implemented
A semaphore will nowadays typically wrap sys_futex under Linux (optionally with a spinlock that exits after a few attempts).
A spinlock is typically implemented using atomic operations, and without using anything provided by the operating system. In the past, this meant using either compiler intrinsics or non-portable assembler instructions. Meanwhile both C++11 and C11 have atomic operations as part of the language, so apart from the general difficulty of writing provably correct lock-free code, it is now possible to implement lock-free code in an entirely portable and (almost) painless way.

very simply, a semaphore is a "yielding" synchronisation object, a spinlock is a 'busywait' one. (there's a little more to semaphores in that they synchronise several threads, unlike a mutex or guard or monitor or critical section that protects a code region from a single thread)

You'd use a semaphore in more circumstances, but use a spinlock where you are going to lock for a very short time - there is a cost to locking especially if you lock a lot. In such cases it can be more efficient to spinlock for a little while waiting for the protected resource to become unlocked. Obviously there is a performance hit if you spin for too long.

typically if you spin for longer than a thread quantum, then you should use a semaphore.

Over and above what Yoav Aviram and gbjbaanb said, the other key point used to be that you would never use a spin-lock on a single-CPU machine, whereas a semaphore would make sense on such a machine. Nowadays, you are frequently hard-pressed to find a machine without multiple cores, or hyperthreading, or equivalent, but in the circumstances that you have just a single CPU, you should use semaphores. (I trust the reason is obvious. If the single CPU is busy waiting for something else to release the spin-lock, but it is running on the only CPU, the lock is unlikely to be released until the current process or thread is preempted by the O/S, which might take a while and nothing useful happens until the preemption occurs.)

From Linux Device Drivers by Rubinni

Unlike semaphores, spinlocks may be used in code that cannot sleep, such as interrupt handlers

I am not a kernel expert but here are few points:

Even uniprocessor machine can use spin-locks if kernel preemption is enabled while compiling the kernel. If kernel preemption is disabled then spin-lock (perhaps) expands to a void statement.

Also, when we are trying to compare Semaphore vs Spin-lock, I believe semaphore refers to the one used in kernel - NOT the one used for IPC (userland).

Basically, spin-lock shall be used if critical section is small (smaller than the overhead of sleep/wake-up) and critical section does not call anything that can sleep! A semaphore shall be used if critical section is bigger and it can sleep.

Raman Chalotra.

Spinlock refers to an implementation of inter-thread locking using machine dependent assembly instructions (such as test-and-set). It is called a spinlock because the thread simply waits in a loop ("spins") repeatedly checking until the lock becomes available (busy wait). Spinlocks are used as a substitute for mutexes, which are a facility supplied by operating systems (not the CPU), because spinlocks perform better, if locked for a short period of time.

A Semaphor is a facility supplied by operating systems for IPC, therefor it's main purpose is inter-process-communication. Being a facility supplied by the operating system it's performance will not be as good as that of a spinlock for inter-thead locking (although possible). Semaphores are better for locking for longer periods of time.

That said - implementing splinlocks in assembly is tricky, and not portable.

I would like to add my observations, more general and not very Linux-specific.

Depending on the memory architecture and the processor capabilities, you might need a spin-lock in order to implement a semaphore on a multi-core or a multiprocessor system, because in such systems a race condition might occur when two or more threads/processes want to acquire a semaphore.

Yes, if your memory architecture offers the locking of a memory section by one core/processor delaying all other accesses, and if your processors offers a test-and-set, you may implement a semaphore without a spin-lock (but very carefully!).

However, as simple/cheap multi-core systems are designed (I'm working in embedded systems), not all memory architectures support such multi-core/multiprocessor features, only test-and-set or equivalent. Then an implementation could be as follows:

• acquire the spin-lock (busy waiting)
• try to acquire the semaphore
• release the spin-lock
• if the semaphore was not successfully acquired, suspend the current thread until the semaphore is released; otherwise continue with the critical section

Releasing the semaphore would need to be implemented as follows:

• acquire the spin-lock
• release the semaphore
• release the spin-lock

Yes, and for simple binary semaphores on an OS-level it would be possible to use only a spin-lock as replacement. But only if the code-sections to be protected are really very small.

As said before, if and when you implement your own OS, make sure to be careful. Debugging such errors is fun (my opinion, not shared by many), but mostly very tedious and difficult.