Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

What is a semaphore?

A semaphore is a programming concept that is frequently used to solve multi-threading problems. My question to the community:

What is a semaphore and how do you use it?

like image 314
bmurphy1976 Avatar asked Aug 29 '08 15:08

bmurphy1976


People also ask

What is semaphore with example?

Semaphores are integer variables that are used to solve the critical section problem by using two atomic operations, wait and signal that are used for process synchronization. The definitions of wait and signal are as follows − Wait. The wait operation decrements the value of its argument S, if it is positive.

What is semaphore in OS in simple words?

Semaphores are two-field data types, one of which is a non-negative type of integer S.V and the other is a set of processes in a queue S.L. It is used to address critical section problems by using two atomic operations, wait and signal, to synchronize processes in this.

What is called semaphore?

A semaphore is an integer variable, shared among multiple processes. The main aim of using a semaphore is process synchronization and access control for a common resource in a concurrent environment. The initial value of a semaphore depends on the problem at hand.

What does the semaphore do?

semaphore, method of visual signaling, usually by means of flags or lights. Before the invention of the telegraph, semaphore signaling from high towers was used to transmit messages between distant points.


2 Answers

Think of semaphores as bouncers at a nightclub. There are a dedicated number of people that are allowed in the club at once. If the club is full no one is allowed to enter, but as soon as one person leaves another person might enter.

It's simply a way to limit the number of consumers for a specific resource. For example, to limit the number of simultaneous calls to a database in an application.

Here is a very pedagogic example in C# :-)

using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Text; using System.Threading;  namespace TheNightclub {     public class Program     {         public static Semaphore Bouncer { get; set; }          public static void Main(string[] args)         {             // Create the semaphore with 3 slots, where 3 are available.             Bouncer = new Semaphore(3, 3);              // Open the nightclub.             OpenNightclub();         }          public static void OpenNightclub()         {             for (int i = 1; i <= 50; i++)             {                 // Let each guest enter on an own thread.                 Thread thread = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(Guest));                 thread.Start(i);             }         }          public static void Guest(object args)         {             // Wait to enter the nightclub (a semaphore to be released).             Console.WriteLine("Guest {0} is waiting to entering nightclub.", args);             Bouncer.WaitOne();                        // Do some dancing.             Console.WriteLine("Guest {0} is doing some dancing.", args);             Thread.Sleep(500);              // Let one guest out (release one semaphore).             Console.WriteLine("Guest {0} is leaving the nightclub.", args);             Bouncer.Release(1);         }     } } 
like image 57
Patrik Svensson Avatar answered Oct 09 '22 17:10

Patrik Svensson


The article Mutexes and Semaphores Demystified by Michael Barr is a great short introduction into what makes mutexes and semaphores different, and when they should and should not be used. I've excerpted several key paragraphs here.

The key point is that mutexes should be used to protect shared resources, while semaphores should be used for signaling. You should generally not use semaphores to protect shared resources, nor mutexes for signaling. There are issues, for instance, with the bouncer analogy in terms of using semaphores to protect shared resources - you can use them that way, but it may cause hard to diagnose bugs.

While mutexes and semaphores have some similarities in their implementation, they should always be used differently.

The most common (but nonetheless incorrect) answer to the question posed at the top is that mutexes and semaphores are very similar, with the only significant difference being that semaphores can count higher than one. Nearly all engineers seem to properly understand that a mutex is a binary flag used to protect a shared resource by ensuring mutual exclusion inside critical sections of code. But when asked to expand on how to use a "counting semaphore," most engineers—varying only in their degree of confidence—express some flavor of the textbook opinion that these are used to protect several equivalent resources.

...

At this point an interesting analogy is made using the idea of bathroom keys as protecting shared resources - the bathroom. If a shop has a single bathroom, then a single key will be sufficient to protect that resource and prevent multiple people from using it simultaneously.

If there are multiple bathrooms, one might be tempted to key them alike and make multiple keys - this is similar to a semaphore being mis-used. Once you have a key you don't actually know which bathroom is available, and if you go down this path you're probably going to end up using mutexes to provide that information and make sure you don't take a bathroom that's already occupied.

A semaphore is the wrong tool to protect several of the essentially same resource, but this is how many people think of it and use it. The bouncer analogy is distinctly different - there aren't several of the same type of resource, instead there is one resource which can accept multiple simultaneous users. I suppose a semaphore can be used in such situations, but rarely are there real-world situations where the analogy actually holds - it's more often that there are several of the same type, but still individual resources, like the bathrooms, which cannot be used this way.

...

The correct use of a semaphore is for signaling from one task to another. A mutex is meant to be taken and released, always in that order, by each task that uses the shared resource it protects. By contrast, tasks that use semaphores either signal or wait—not both. For example, Task 1 may contain code to post (i.e., signal or increment) a particular semaphore when the "power" button is pressed and Task 2, which wakes the display, pends on that same semaphore. In this scenario, one task is the producer of the event signal; the other the consumer.

...

Here an important point is made that mutexes interfere with real time operating systems in a bad way, causing priority inversion where a less important task may be executed before a more important task because of resource sharing. In short, this happens when a lower priority task uses a mutex to grab a resource, A, then tries to grab B, but is paused because B is unavailable. While it's waiting, a higher priority task comes along and needs A, but it's already tied up, and by a process that isn't even running because it's waiting for B. There are many ways to resolve this, but it most often is fixed by altering the mutex and task manager. The mutex is much more complex in these cases than a binary semaphore, and using a semaphore in such an instance will cause priority inversions because the task manager is unaware of the priority inversion and cannot act to correct it.

...

The cause of the widespread modern confusion between mutexes and semaphores is historical, as it dates all the way back to the 1974 invention of the Semaphore (capital "S", in this article) by Djikstra. Prior to that date, none of the interrupt-safe task synchronization and signaling mechanisms known to computer scientists was efficiently scalable for use by more than two tasks. Dijkstra's revolutionary, safe-and-scalable Semaphore was applied in both critical section protection and signaling. And thus the confusion began.

However, it later became obvious to operating system developers, after the appearance of the priority-based preemptive RTOS (e.g., VRTX, ca. 1980), publication of academic papers establishing RMA and the problems caused by priority inversion, and a paper on priority inheritance protocols in 1990, 3 it became apparent that mutexes must be more than just semaphores with a binary counter.

Mutex: resource sharing

Semaphore: signaling

Don't use one for the other without careful consideration of the side effects.

like image 45
Adam Davis Avatar answered Oct 09 '22 16:10

Adam Davis