http>
Forget this response. We have system V semaphores with this feature. Interprocess models POSIX interface and that's why post is V(1).
Ion, James thanks to all for the answers. Sorry for the delay in my reply. And sorry for the uppercase in this reply, I've used it only for a better explanation. And sorry for the too long post... Yes, it's true, I've said: "the post() unlocks only one of the 4 producers", but perhaps I've badly explained the problem. I don't want to wake up all waiters with a single post(), but only one waiter every time I post() the semaphore, independently from the counter value. The problem is that the interprocess::semaphore() doesn't wake up a waiter EVERY TIME I post() the semaphore, but only if the counter is 0. If the buffer has more of one free resource, and I've more of one waiter locked, EVERY TME I post() the semaphore should unlock ONE of the waiters. I'm working under Windows XP, so I've analized the "emulation" implementation of the semaphore interface (the posix implementation is a simple wrapper of the POSIX semaphore). The emulation module implements the post() like this: inline void interprocess_semaphore::post() { scoped_lock<interprocess_mutex> lock(m_mut); if(m_count == 0){ m_cond.notify_one(); } ++m_count; } - From the cited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_(programming), it isn't mentioned the requirement to check if the semaphore counter is 0 for release a waiter. - Ion, you've said: "V can only wake a single thread, because the semaphore count represents the free resource count". I am perfectly agree with you. But this should be done independently from the counter value, not only when the counter is 0. - Ion, you've also said: "Interprocess models POSIX interface and that's why post is V(1)". I'm agree with you if you do V(1), but not if you do: if ( sempaphore_counter == 0 ) { V(1); } - I've modeled my consumers - producer problem like described in the cited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producer-consumer_problem#Using_semaphores procedure consumer() { while (true) { down(fillCount) item = removeItemFromBuffer() up(emptyCount) consumeItem(item) } } But using the interprocess::semaphore, the up() operation correctly unlocks one of the locked threads, but ONLY if counter == 0. - From boost documentation: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_39_0/doc/html/interprocess/synchronization_m...: "Post: Increments the semaphore count. If any process is blocked, one of those processes is awoken." So, not only when the semaphore counter is 0. - From boost documentation too: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_39_0/doc/html/boost/interprocess/interproces... void post() ; Increments the interprocess_semaphore count. If there are processes/threads blocked waiting for the interprocess_semaphore, then one of these processes will return successfully from its wait function. [...] This is exactly the Dijkstra semaphore behaviour; but for correctly describe the interprocess::semaphore lacks the words: "...only if the counter is 0" I hope to have explained my point of view. Best, Cosimo Calabrese.