A better approach is to take advantage of the principles of modularity and data encapsulation. A reentrant function behaves correctly if called simultaneously by several threads. To write a reentrant function is a matter of understanding just what behaves correctly means for this particular function.
Functions that are callable by several threads must be made reentrant. To make a function reentrant might require changes to the function interface or to the implementation.
Functions that access global state, like memory or files, have reentrance problems. These functions need to protect their use of global state with the appropriate synchronization mechanisms provided by threads.
Code locking is done at the function call level and guarantees that a function executes entirely under the protection of a lock. The assumption is for all access to data to be done through functions. Functions that share data should execute under the same lock.
Some parallel programming languages provide a construct called a monitor. The monitor implicitly does code locking for functions that are defined within the scope of the monitor. A monitor can also be implemented by a mutex lock.
Functions under the protection of the same mutex lock or within the same monitor are guaranteed to execute atomically with respect to other functions in the monitor.
Data locking guarantees that access to a collection of data is maintained consistently. For data locking, the concept of locking code is still there, but code locking is around references to shared (global) data, only. For mutual exclusion locking, only one thread can be in the critical section for each collection of data.
Alternatively, in a multiple reader, single writer protocol, several readers can be allowed for each collection of data or one writer. Multiple threads can execute in a single module when the threads operate on different data collections. In particular, the threads do not conflict on a single collection for the multiple readers, single writer protocol. So, data locking typically allows more concurrency than does code locking.
What strategy should you use when using locks, whether implemented with mutexes, condition variables, or semaphores, in a program? Should you try to achieve maximum parallelism by locking only when necessary and unlocking as soon as possible, called fine-grained locking? Or should you hold locks for long periods to minimize the overhead of taking and releasing locks, called coarse-grained locking?
The granularity of the lock depends on the amount of data protected by the lock. A very coarse-grained lock might be a single lock to protect all data. Dividing how the data is protected by the appropriate number of locks is very important. Locking that is too fine-grained can degrade performance. The overhead associated with acquiring and releasing locks can become significant when your application contains too many locks.
The common wisdom is to start with a coarse-grained approach, identify bottlenecks, and add finer-grained locking where necessary to alleviate the bottlenecks. This approach is reasonably sound advice, but use your own judgment about finding the balance between maximizing parallelism and minimizing lock overhead.
The definition is modified somewhat for concurrent execution: an invariant is a condition or relation that is true when the associated lock is being set. Once the lock is set, the invariant can be false. However, the code that holds the lock must reestablish the invariant before releasing the lock.
An invariant can also be a condition or relation that is true when a lock is being set. Condition variables can be thought of as having an invariant that is the condition.
mutex_lock(&lock); while((condition)==FALSE) cond_wait(&cv,&lock); assert((condition)==TRUE); . . . mutex_unlock(&lock);
Another example is a module that manages a doubly linked list of elements. For each item on the list, a good invariant is the forward pointer of the previous item on the list. The forward pointer should also point to the same element as the backward pointer of the forward item.
Assume that this module uses code-based locking and therefore is protected by a single global mutex lock. When an item is deleted or added, the mutex lock is acquired, the correct manipulation of the pointers is made, and the mutex lock is released. Obviously, at some point in the manipulation of the pointers the invariant is false, but the invariant is reestablished before the mutex lock is released.