What are the performance implications of using mutexes versus semaphores?

What are the performance implications of using mutexes versus semaphores?

Mutexes and semaphores are both synchronization primitives, but they have different performance characteristics. Mutexes are generally faster for locking resources because they allow only one thread to access a resource at a time. Semaphores, on the other hand, can allow multiple threads to access a resource, which can lead to more context switching and overhead.

Can you explain when to use one over the other?

Certainly! Use mutexes when you need exclusive access to a resource, ensuring that only one thread can modify it at a time. Use semaphores when you want to limit the number of threads accessing a resource concurrently, such as controlling access to a pool of resources.

What about deadlocks? Are they more common with one than the other?

Deadlocks can occur with both mutexes and semaphores, but they are often more common with mutexes due to their exclusive locking nature. If multiple threads try to acquire the same mutex in different orders, it can lead to a deadlock situation.

How can I prevent deadlocks in my application?

To prevent deadlocks, you can use strategies like acquiring locks in a consistent order, using timeouts when trying to acquire locks, or implementing a deadlock detection algorithm.