Difference between binary semaphore and mutex

They are NOT the same thing. They are used for different purposes!
While both types of semaphores have a full/empty state and use the same API, their usage is very different.

Mutual Exclusion Semaphores
Mutual Exclusion semaphores are used to protect shared resources (data structure, file, etc..).

A Mutex semaphore is "owned" by the task that takes it. If Task B attempts to semGive a mutex currently held by Task A, Task B's call will return an error and fail.

Mutexes always use the following sequence:

  - SemTake
  - Critical Section
  - SemGive

Here is a simple example:

  Thread A                     Thread B
   Take Mutex
     access data
     ...                        Take Mutex  <== Will block
     ...
   Give Mutex                     access data  <== Unblocks
                                  ...
                                Give Mutex

Binary Semaphore
Binary Semaphore address a totally different question:

• Task B is pended waiting for something to happen (a sensor being tripped for example).
• Sensor Trips and an Interrupt Service Routine runs. It needs to notify a task of the trip.
• Task B should run and take appropriate actions for the sensor trip. Then go back to waiting.

   Task A                      Task B
   ...                         Take BinSemaphore   <== wait for something
   Do Something Noteworthy
   Give BinSemaphore           do something    <== unblocks

Note that with a binary semaphore, it is OK for B to take the semaphore and A to give it.
Again, a binary semaphore is NOT protecting a resource from access. The act of Giving and Taking a semaphore are fundamentally decoupled.
It typically makes little sense for the same task to so a give and a take on the same binary semaphore.

• A mutex can be released only by the thread that had acquired it.
  
• A binary semaphore can be signaled by any thread (or process).

so semaphores are more suitable for some synchronization problems like producer-consumer.

On Windows, binary semaphores are more like event objects than mutexes.

The Toilet example is an enjoyable analogy:

Mutex:

Is a key to a toilet. One person can have the key - occupy the toilet - at the time. When finished, the person gives (frees) the key to the next person in the queue.

Officially: "Mutexes are typically used to serialise access to a section of re-entrant code that cannot be executed concurrently by more than one thread. A mutex object only allows one thread into a controlled section, forcing other threads which attempt to gain access to that section to wait until the first thread has exited from that section." Ref: Symbian Developer Library

(A mutex is really a semaphore with value 1.)

Semaphore:

Is the number of free identical toilet keys. Example, say we have four toilets with identical locks and keys. The semaphore count - the count of keys - is set to 4 at beginning (all four toilets are free), then the count value is decremented as people are coming in. If all toilets are full, ie. there are no free keys left, the semaphore count is 0. Now, when eq. one person leaves the toilet, semaphore is increased to 1 (one free key), and given to the next person in the queue.

Officially: "A semaphore restricts the number of simultaneous users of a shared resource up to a maximum number. Threads can request access to the resource (decrementing the semaphore), and can signal that they have finished using the resource (incrementing the semaphore)." Ref: Symbian Developer Library

Since none of the above answer clears the confusion, here is one which cleared my confusion.

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.

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

Their synchronization semantics are very different:

• mutexes allow serialization of access to a given resource i.e. multiple threads wait for a lock, one at a time and as previously said, the thread owns the lock until it is done: only this particular thread can unlock it.
• a binary semaphore is a counter with value 0 and 1: a task blocking on it until any task does a sem_post. The semaphore advertises that a resource is available, and it provides the mechanism to wait until it is signaled as being available.

As such one can see a mutex as a token passed from task to tasks and a semaphore as traffic red-light (it signals someone that it can proceed).

At a theoretical level, they are no different semantically. You can implement a mutex using semaphores or vice versa (see here for an example). In practice, the implementations are different and they offer slightly different services.

The practical difference (in terms of the system services surrounding them) is that the implementation of a mutex is aimed at being a more lightweight synchronisation mechanism. In oracle-speak, mutexes are known as latches and semaphores are known as waits.

At the lowest level, they use some sort of atomic test and set mechanism. This reads the current value of a memory location, computes some sort of conditional and writes out a value at that location in a single instruction that cannot be interrupted. This means that you can acquire a mutex and test to see if anyone else had it before you.

A typical mutex implementation has a process or thread executing the test-and-set instruction and evaluating whether anything else had set the mutex. A key point here is that there is no interaction with the scheduler, so we have no idea (and don't care) who has set the lock. Then we either give up our time slice and attempt it again when the task is re-scheduled or execute a spin-lock. A spin lock is an algorithm like:

Count down from 5000:
     i. Execute the test-and-set instruction
    ii. If the mutex is clear, we have acquired it in the previous instruction 
        so we can exit the loop
   iii. When we get to zero, give up our time slice.

When we have finished executing our protected code (known as a critical section) we just set the mutex value to zero or whatever means 'clear.' If multiple tasks are attempting to acquire the mutex then the next task that happens to be scheduled after the mutex is released will get access to the resource. Typically you would use mutexes to control a synchronised resource where exclusive access is only needed for very short periods of time, normally to make an update to a shared data structure.

A semaphore is a synchronised data structure (typically using a mutex) that has a count and some system call wrappers that interact with the scheduler in a bit more depth than the mutex libraries would. Semaphores are incremented and decremented and used to block tasks until something else is ready. See Producer/Consumer Problem for a simple example of this. Semaphores are initialised to some value - a binary semaphore is just a special case where the semaphore is initialised to 1. Posting to a semaphore has the effect of waking up a waiting process.

A basic semaphore algorithm looks like:

(somewhere in the program startup)
Initialise the semaphore to its start-up value.

Acquiring a semaphore
   i. (synchronised) Attempt to decrement the semaphore value
  ii. If the value would be less than zero, put the task on the tail of the list of tasks waiting on the semaphore and give up the time slice.

Posting a semaphore
   i. (synchronised) Increment the semaphore value
  ii. If the value is greater or equal to the amount requested in the post at the front of the queue, take that task off the queue and make it runnable.  
 iii. Repeat (ii) for all tasks until the posted value is exhausted or there are no more tasks waiting.

In the case of a binary semaphore the main practical difference between the two is the nature of the system services surrounding the actual data structure.

EDIT: As evan has rightly pointed out, spinlocks will slow down a single processor machine. You would only use a spinlock on a multi-processor box because on a single processor the process holding the mutex will never reset it while another task is running. Spinlocks are only useful on multi-processor architectures.

On Windows, there are two differences between mutexes and binary semaphores:

1. A mutex can only be released by the thread which has ownership, i.e. the thread which previously called the Wait function, (or which took ownership when creating it). A semaphore can be released by any thread.

2. A thread can call a wait function repeatedly on a mutex without blocking. However, if you call a wait function twice on a binary semaphore without releasing the semaphore in between, the thread will block.

Mutex work on blocking critical region, But Semaphore work on count.

Best Solution

The only difference is

1.Mutex -> lock and unlock are under the ownership of a thread that locks the mutex.

2.Semaphore -> No ownership i.e; if one thread calls semwait(s) any other thread can call sempost(s) to remove the lock.

I think most of the answers here were confusing especially those saying that mutex can be released only by the process that holds it but semaphore can be signaled by ay process. The above line is kind of vague in terms of semaphore. To understand we should know that there are two kinds of semaphore one is called counting semaphore and the other is called a binary semaphore. In counting semaphore handles access to n number of resources where n can be defined before the use. Each semaphore has a count variable, which keeps the count of the number of resources in use, initially, it is set to n. Each process that wishes to uses a resource performs a wait() operation on the semaphore (thereby decrementing the count). When a process releases a resource, it performs a release() operation (incrementing the count). When the count becomes 0, all the resources are being used. After that, the process waits until the count becomes more than 0. Now here is the catch only the process that holds the resource can increase the count no other process can increase the count only the processes holding a resource can increase the count and the process waiting for the semaphore again checks and when it sees the resource available it decreases the count again. So in terms of binary semaphore, only the process holding the semaphore can increase the count, and count remains zero until it stops using the semaphore and increases the count and other process gets the chance to access the semaphore.

The main difference between binary semaphore and mutex is that semaphore is a signaling mechanism and mutex is a locking mechanism, but binary semaphore seems to function like mutex that creates confusion, but both are different concepts suitable for a different kinds of work.

The answer may depend on the target OS. For example, at least one RTOS implementation I'm familiar with will allow multiple sequential "get" operations against a single OS mutex, so long as they're all from within the same thread context. The multiple gets must be replaced by an equal number of puts before another thread will be allowed to get the mutex. This differs from binary semaphores, for which only a single get is allowed at a time, regardless of thread contexts.

The idea behind this type of mutex is that you protect an object by only allowing a single context to modify the data at a time. Even if the thread gets the mutex and then calls a function that further modifies the object (and gets/puts the protector mutex around its own operations), the operations should still be safe because they're all happening under a single thread.

{
    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.
}

Of course, when using this feature, you must be certain that all accesses within a single thread really are safe!

I'm not sure how common this approach is, or whether it applies outside of the systems with which I'm familiar. For an example of this kind of mutex, see the ThreadX RTOS.

MUTEX

Until recently, the only sleeping lock in the kernel was the semaphore. Most users of semaphores instantiated a semaphore with a count of one and treated them as a mutual exclusion lock—a sleeping version of the spin-lock. Unfortunately, semaphores are rather generic and do not impose any usage constraints. This makes them useful for managing exclusive access in obscure situations, such as complicated dances between the kernel and userspace. But it also means that simpler locking is harder to do, and the lack of enforced rules makes any sort of automated debugging or constraint enforcement impossible. Seeking a simpler sleeping lock, the kernel developers introduced the mutex.Yes, as you are now accustomed to, that is a confusing name. Let’s clarify.The term “mutex” is a generic name to refer to any sleeping lock that enforces mutual exclusion, such as a semaphore with a usage count of one. In recent Linux kernels, the proper noun “mutex” is now also a specific type of sleeping lock that implements mutual exclusion.That is, a mutex is a mutex.

The simplicity and efficiency of the mutex come from the additional constraints it imposes on its users over and above what the semaphore requires. Unlike a semaphore, which implements the most basic of behaviour in accordance with Dijkstra’s original design, the mutex has a stricter, narrower use case: n Only one task can hold the mutex at a time. That is, the usage count on a mutex is always one.

1. Whoever locked a mutex must unlock it. That is, you cannot lock a mutex in one context and then unlock it in another. This means that the mutex isn’t suitable for more complicated synchronizations between kernel and user-space. Most use cases, however, cleanly lock and unlock from the same context.
2. Recursive locks and unlocks are not allowed. That is, you cannot recursively acquire the same mutex, and you cannot unlock an unlocked mutex.
3. A process cannot exit while holding a mutex.
4. A mutex cannot be acquired by an interrupt handler or bottom half, even with mutex_trylock().
5. A mutex can be managed only via the official API: It must be initialized via the methods described in this section and cannot be copied, hand initialized, or reinitialized.

[1] Linux Kernel Development, Third Edition Robert Love

The basic issue is concurrency. There is more than one flow of control. Think about two processes using a shared memory. Now only one process can access the shared memory at a time. If more than one process accesses the shared memory at a time, the contents of shared memory would get corrupted. It is like a railroad track. Only one train can run on it, else there would be an accident.So there is a signalling mechanism, which a driver checks. If the signal is green, the train can go and if it is red it has to wait to use the track. Similarly in case of shared memory, there is a binary semaphore. If the semaphore is 1, a process acquires it (makes it 0) and goes ahead and accesses it. If the semaphore is 0, the process waits. The functionality the binary semaphore has to provide is mutual exclusion (or mutex, in short) so that only one of the many concurrent entities (process or thread) mutually excludes others. It is a plus that we have counting semaphores, which help in synchronizing multiple instances of a resource.

Mutual exclusion is the basic functionality provided by semaphores. Now in the context of threads, we might have a different name and syntax for it. But the underlying concept is the same: how to keep integrity of code and data in concurrent programming. In my opinion, things like ownership, and associated checks are refinements provided by implementations.

Mutex is a Criteria(Out of 4) that any algorithm that intends to solve the Critical Section Problem must follow whereas binary semaphore in itself is a variable that can take values 0 and 1.

"binary semaphore" is a programming language circumvent to use a «semaphore» like «mutex». Apparently there are two very big differences:

1. The way you call each one of them.

2. The maximum length of the "identifier".

You can clearly remember difference by this:

1. Mutex lock : is for protecting critical region, Mutex can't be used across processes, only used in single process

2. Semaphore: is for signalling availability of a resource. Semaphore can be used both across processes and across processes.