I have read about mutex and semaphore from INTERNET , but I am not clear the difference b/w these two.
Can anyone please clear the confusion ? Please try to give example for both using java clearly stating difference.
Also is mutex same as binary semaphore ?
Thanks
Related
why exactly the program module concept came into picture ? I read in one book that it is to avoid the timing violations. How ?
Any suggestions or help is highly appreciated.
Thank You
Sam
Normally, a question like this is considered to broad and opinionated for SO. But since I was directly involved in the development and standardization of SystemVerilog, I can present a few facts from an article I wrote about it.
Program blocks came directly from a donation of the Vera language to SystemVerilog by Synopsys , and try to mimic the scheduling semantics that a PLI application has interacting with a Verilog simulator.
A program block's original purpose in SystemVerilog was to avoid race conditions (not timing violations) between sampling and driving signals between the DUT and the Testbench. It also controlled starting and termination of the "test".
Since its introduction, a number of other features within SystemVerilog have subsumed the need for program blocks as I explain in my article.
I am new to OS.This question might sound a little dumb, but please help me to understand the concept behind it.
Let S-> A semaphore variable
Now let wait(S) be implemented as
wait(S){
while S<=0 ;
S--;
}
Now wait(S) is an atomic operation.Atomic means it cannot be interrupted.
Now if I have a uniprocessor then the Process executing wait() will run forever and will never be preempted if some other process sets S=0.
How does it work out? Please Explain.
In Requesting a clear, picturesque explanation of Reactive Extensions (RX)? I asked about what RX is all about, and I think, thanks to the provided answers I now got the idea.
In the referenced question i quoted a sentence from http://reactive-extensions.github.com/RxJS/ which says:
RxJS is to events as promises are to async.
Although I think that I got the idea behind RX, I do not get this sentence at all. I can not even say what it is exactly that I do not understand. It's more like ... I don't see the connection between the first and the second half of the sentence.
To me, this sentence sounds important and impressive, but I can hardly tell whether it's true or not, whether it's a great insight or not, and so on ...
Can anybody explain what the sentence means in words someone (like me) can understand who is new to all this reactive stuff?
Promises are a way to define computations that may happen once an asynchronous operation completes. RxJs is a way to define computations that may happen when one or more events, in a stream, occur (onNext), complete (onCompleted), or throw an exception (onError).
Trying this free forum for developers. I am migrating a serial driver to kernel 2.6.31.5. I have used various books and articles to solve problems going from 2.4
Now I have a couple of kill_proc that is not supported anymore in kernel 2.6.31.5
What would be the fastest way to migrate this into the kernel 2.6.31.5 way of killing a thread. In the books they say use kill() but it does not seem to be so in 2.6.31.5. Using send_signal would be a good way, but how do I do this? There must be a task_struct or something, I wich I could just provide my PID and SIGTERM and go ahaed and kill my thread, but it seems more complicated, having to set a struct with parameters I do not know of.
If anyone have a real example, or a link to a place with up to date info on kernel 2.6.31 I would be very thankful. Siply put, I need to kill my thread, and this is not suppose to be hard. ;)
This is my code now:
kill_proc(ex_pid, SIGTERM, 1);
/Jörgen
For use with kthreads, there is now kthread_stop that the caller (e.g. the module's exit function) can invoke. The kthread itself has to check using kthread_should_stop. Examples of that are readily available in the kernel source tree.
I'd like to use POSIX semaphores to manage atomic get and put from a file representing a queue. I want the flexibility of having something named in the filesystem, so that completely unrelated processes can share a queue. I think this plan rules out pthreads. The named posix semaphores are great for putting something in the filesystem that any process can see, but I can't find the standard CondWait primitive:
... decide we have to wait ....
CondWait(sem, cond);
When CondWait is called by a process it atomically posts to sem and waits on cond. When some other process posts to cond, the waiting process wakes up only if it can atomically decrement sem as well. The alternative of
... decide we have to wait ....
sem_post(sem);
sem_wait(cond);
sem_wait(sem);
is subject to a race condition in which some other process signals cond just before this process waits on it.
I hardly ever do any concurrent programming, so I thought I would ask SO: if I use a standard POSIX counting semaphore for the condition variable, is it possible that this race is benign?
Just in case anybody wants the larger context, I am building get and put operations for an atomic queue that can be called from shell scripts.
Since there are no other answers I will follow up with what I've learned:
Pthreads will not work with my application because I have processes without a common ancestor which need to share an atomic queue.
Posix semaphores are subject to the wakeup-waiting race, but because unlike classic condition variables they are counting semaphores, the race is benign. I don't have a proof of this claim but I have had a system running for two days now and working well. (Completely meaningless I know, but at least it meant I got the job done.)
Named Posix semaphores are difficult to garbage-collect from the filesystem.
To summarize, named Posix semaphores turned out to be a good basis for implementing an atomic queue abstraction to be shared among unrelated processes.
I would like to have a proof or a validated SPIN model, but as my need for the application is limited, it seems unlikely that I will write one. I hope this helps someone else who may want to use Posix semaphores.
According to the POSIX standard, the set of semaphore routines is:
sem_close()
sem_destroy()
sem_getvalue()
sem_init()
sem_open()
sem_post()
sem_timedwait()
sem_trywait()
sem_unlink()
sem_wait()
The sem_trywait() and sem_timedwait() functions might be what you are looking for.
I know this question is old, but the obvious solution would be to just use process-shared mutexes and condition variables located in a file you can mmap.
You are looking for: pthread_cond_wait, pthread_cond_signal, I think.
That's if you are using posix threads, then the pthread methods would supply the functionality of CondWait and Signal.
Look here for source code on multiprocess pthreads via shared memory.
http://linux.die.net/man/3/pthread_mutexattr_init
That's for Linux, but the documents are posix. They're similar to Solaris, but you'll want to peruse the man pages on your OS.