4 ms·

My knowledge about kernels is very limited, but is this not the whole principle behind Google's Fuchsia?

• twic 5y ago
  It sounds exactly like every microkernel architecture to me. Subsystems are processes, processes communicate by sending asynchronous messages, there is a way to wait for a reply to a message to allow synchronous interaction, there is a way to share or transfer ownership of memory between processes to allow bulk data transfer. Message sending might be implemented on top of memory mapping, but doesn't need to be.
  • fancl20 5y ago
    That's exactly the point I want to express - this type of communication design is not bind to microkernel or io_uring or any system. It's a general architecture pattern appears on any cross subsystems communication. Hardware DMA also has a similar design.
• cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  As far as I understand it, this kind of asynchronous callback based I/O was a hallmark of VMS's IO subsystem (1st release 1977...); and Unix's "get a byte, get a byte, get a byte byte byte" model was a major criticism that the VMS folks had about it. https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/14150/how-should-we-interpret-dave-cutlers-criticism-of-unix/14151 https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/14150/how... So, no, I don't think you need to jump all the way to microkernel/message-passing (like Fuchsia) to get this kind of model.