std::unique_lock<std::mutex> or std::lock_guard<std::mutex>?

The difference is that you can lock and unlock a std::unique_lock. std::lock_guard will be locked only once on construction and unlocked on destruction.

So for use case B you definitely need a std::unique_lock for the condition variable. In case A it depends whether you need to relock the guard.

std::unique_lock has other features that allow it to e.g.: be constructed without locking the mutex immediately but to build the RAII wrapper (see here).

std::lock_guard also provides a convenient RAII wrapper, but cannot lock multiple mutexes safely. It can be used when you need a wrapper for a limited scope, e.g.: a member function:

class MyClass{    std::mutex my_mutex;    void member_foo() {        std::lock_guard<mutex_type> lock(this->my_mutex);                    /*         block of code which needs mutual exclusion (e.g. open the same          file in multiple threads).        */        //mutex is automatically released when lock goes out of scope    }           };

To clarify a question by chmike, by default std::lock_guard and std::unique_lock are the same.So in the above case, you could replace std::lock_guard with std::unique_lock. However, std::unique_lock might have a tad more overhead.

Note that these days (since, C++17) one should use std::scoped_lock instead of std::lock_guard.

lock_guard and unique_lock are pretty much the same thing; lock_guard is a restricted version with a limited interface.

A lock_guard always holds a lock from its construction to its destruction. A unique_lock can be created without immediately locking, can unlock at any point in its existence, and can transfer ownership of the lock from one instance to another.

So you always use lock_guard, unless you need the capabilities of unique_lock. A condition_variable needs a unique_lock.

Use lock_guard unless you need to be able to manually unlock the mutex in between without destroying the lock.

In particular, condition_variable unlocks its mutex when going to sleep upon calls to wait. That is why a lock_guard is not sufficient here.

If you're already on C++17 or later, consider using scoped_lock as a slightly improved version of lock_guard, with the same essential capabilities.