What is the difference between lock and Mutex?

Question

What is the difference between lock and Mutex? Why can't they be used interchangeably?

Kahaleel

Answer 1

A lock is specific to the AppDomain, while Mutex to the Operating System allowing you to perform inter-process locking and synchronization (IPC).

Phyto

Answer 2

lock is a compiler keyword, not an actual class or object. It's a wrapper around the functionality of the Monitor class and is designed to make the Monitor easier to work with for the common case.

The Monitor (and the lock keyword) are, as Darin said, restricted to the AppDomain. Primarily because a reference to a memory address (in the form of an instantiated object) is required to manage the "lock" and maintain the identity of the Monitor

The Mutex, on the other hand, is a .Net wrapper around an operating system construct, and can be used for system-wide synchronization, using string data (instead of a pointer to data) as its identifier. Two mutexes that reference two strings in two completely different memory addresses, but having the same data, will actually utilize the same operating-system mutex.

Pyriform

Answer 3

A Mutex can be either local to a process or system-wide. MSDN:

Mutexes are of two types: local mutexes, which are unnamed, and named system mutexes. A local mutex exists only within your process.

Furthermore, one should take special care - detailed on the same page as well - when using a system-wide mutex on a system with Terminal Services.

One of the differences between Mutex and lock is that Mutex utilizes a kernel-level construct, so synchronization will always require at least a user space-kernel space transition.

lock - that is really a shortcut to the Monitor class, on the other hand tries to avoid allocating kernel resources and transitioning to kernel code (and is thus leaner & faster - if one has to find a WinAPI construct that it resembles, it would be CriticalSection).

The other difference is what others point out: a named Mutex can be used across processes.

Unless one has special needs or requires synchronization across processes, it is just better to stick to lock (aka Monitor)˛

There are several other "minor" differences, like how abandonment is handled, etc.

The same can be said about ReaderWriterLock and ReaderWriterLockSlim in 3.5, Semaphore and the new SemaphoreSlim in .NET 4.0 etc. It is true that the latter xxSlim classes cannot be used as a system-wide sync primitives, but they were never meant to - they were "only" meant to be faster and more resource friendly.

Emogene

Answer 4

I use a Mutex to check see if I already have a copy of the application running on the same machine.

bool firstInstance;
Mutex mutex = new Mutex(false, @"Local\DASHBOARD_MAIN_APPLICATION", out firstInstance);

if (!firstInstance)
{
    //another copy of this application running 
}
else
{
    //run main application loop here.
}
// Refer to the mutex down here so garbage collection doesn't chuck it out.
GC.KeepAlive(mutex);

Blas

Thanks for providing an example. – Valorize

You could probably avoid the GC.KeepAlive(mutex) if you assign the mutex instantiation to a static field on your startup object – Royce

Answer 5

A lot has been said already, but to make it simple, here's my take.

lock -> Simple to use, wrapper on monitor, locks across threads in an AppDomain.

unnamed mutex -> similar to lock except locking scope is more and it's across AppDomain in a process.

Named mutex -> locking scope is even more than unnamed mutex and it's across process in an operating system.

So now options are there, you need to choose the one fits best in your case.

Dioptrics

As I have understood from the answers and the examples for mutex here msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/… : an unnamed mutex acts same as a lock. However mutex.WaitOne(1000) gives us a chance to timeout the lock. On the other hand, Monitor.TryEnter also gives us that ability. As mentioned, Mutex is a wrapper. So I would use a lock or Monitor instead of an unnamed mutex. But if there is a lock across processes is required, a named mutex is the way to go. Please correct me If I am wrong. – Inlier

Answer 6

Mutex is a cross process and there will be a classic example of not running more than one instance of an application.

2nd example is say you are having a file and you don't want different process to access the same file , you can implement a Mutex but remember one thing Mutex is a operating system wide and cannot used between two remote process.

Lock is a simplest way to protect section of your code and it is appdomain specific , you can replace lock with Moniters if you want more controlled synchronization.

Atlee

Answer 7

Few more minor differences which were not mentioned in the answers:

1. In the case of using locks, you can be sure that the lock will be released when an exception happens inside the lock's block.
   That's because the lock uses monitors under the hood and is implemented this way:

    object __lockObj = x;
    bool __lockWasTaken = false;
    try
    {
        System.Threading.Monitor.Enter(__lockObj, ref __lockWasTaken);
        // Your code...
    }
    finally
    {
        if (__lockWasTaken) System.Threading.Monitor.Exit(__lockObj);
    }
   

   Thus, in any case, the lock is released, and you don't need to release it manually (like you'd do for the mutexes).

2. For Locks, you usually use a private object to lock (and should use).
   This is done for many reasons. (More info: see this answer and official documentation).

So, in case of locks, you can't (accidentally gain) access to the locked object from the outside and cause some damage.
But in case of Mutex, you can, as it's common to have a Mutex which is marked public and used from anywhere.

Cordova

Answer 8

The Lock and Monitors are basically used to provide thread safety for threads that are generated by the application itself i.e. Internal Threads. On the other hand, Mutex ensures thread safety for threads that are generated by the external applications i.e. External Threads. Using Mutex, only one external thread can access our application code at any given point in time.

read this

Antiseptic