@DK: absolutely......actually mutex is a kinda semaphore...and unlike semaphores it does not have any list(of waiting processes) associated with it and just is a kind of lock and key model with no waiting Q.someone can say that they are Binary semaphore since binary semaphore have only two values 0/1 thus no waiting Q and behave like mutex
On Jun 18, 1:58 am, DK <[email protected]> wrote: > @Dumanshu/@Ankit: Of course mutexes can be made to work between processes > (it's an implementation detail). But the *concept* of a mutex is Owner + > (Lock & Key) pair. By adding the concept of Owner to a lock, we can ensure > that only the person who locked the lock can open it. This *guarantees* > mutual exclusion (which is unlike a semaphore). A semaphore is a signalling > mechanism between threads/processes that simply indicates an event that has > occured asynchronously to the process/thread's flow of control (for > processes/threads other than the event generating process of-course). It is > often used to indicate that cooperative progress may be possible on > resources under contention or synchronization between states may be > required. Any cooperating process/thread can modify the value of a semaphore > which is not true of a mutex. > > Note: Mutex and Semaphore are essentially concepts. Their implementations > can vary in different systems and have different implementation constraints > but the theory is clear. The two are different and serve different purposes > though they may share implementation details. > > -- > DK > > http://twitter.com/divyekapoorhttp://www.divye.in -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Algorithm Geeks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks?hl=en.
