3 ms·

NT and XNU never had microkernel origins - Cutler explicitly refuted this at a conference in the early 1990s (if anyone remembers which, kindly share) and NeXTS

NT and XNU never had microkernel origins - Cutler explicitly refuted this at a conference in the early 1990s (if anyone remembers which, kindly share) and NeXTSTEP forked Mach at version 2.5, which was not a microkernel (see https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/wi11/cse221/papers/accetta86.pdf https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/wi11/cse221/papers/accetta86...). XNU retained this monolithic architecture (as did Tru64 and other systems that trace their heritage to Mach prior to its version 3).

microtonal 2y ago
NeXTSTEP forked Mach at version 2.5 Various sources state that they rebased to OSF Mach Kernel 7.3, which was based on Mach 3 and parts of Mach 4. The OSF MK ancestry of macOS XNU can still be seen in paths: https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu/tree/main/osfmk https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu/tree/main/osf...
- rhet0rica 2y ago
  This is quite a ship-of-Theseus problem. Steve Jobs hired Avi Tevanian to work at NeXT on the Mach kernel, and later brought Tevanian to Apple; he was still working on the Mach/Darwin kernel as late as the first iPhone release. There is a reasonable argument to be made that the OSF kernel is actually the derivative, by default.
  - p_ing 2y ago
    There are a few references to the OSF Mach kernel from '98 in a few files, such as https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu/blob/main/osfmk/ipc/ipc_init.h https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu/blob/main/osf... EDIT: Apple calls out Mach 3.0. https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/Architecture/Architecture.html https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Da... https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/Mach/Mach.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000905-CH209-TPXREF101 https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Da... Apple took Mach 3.0 and collapsed it into a single address space for performance purposes. Certainly reasonable.
- netbsdusers 2y ago
  As far as I can tell (this isn't gospel, just something I've inferred as the only reasonable explanation from comparing the codebases), Apple reconstructed a Mach 2.5 style kernel, like NeXTSTEP had, from fresh codebases (OSF Mach and 4.4BSD-Lite2), perhaps because 4.3BSD was still encumbered at the time. The Darwin 0.1 and 0.3 releases contain the old kernel, derived directly from NeXTSTEP, and that's the direct derivative of Mach 2.5. The later XNU appears to be a reconstruction of that kernel with unencumbered code and that's also when IOKit replaced DriverKit.
rhet0rica 2y ago
In more recent interviews Cutler has been firm that the NT kernel was designed pragmatically, a view that Tevanian also evidently later adopted, as evident with the great wheel of incarnation that Darwin went through on the road to XNU, although I'm not sure Tevanian ever stated his perspectives on this matter publicly. Neither of these systems were ever true monolithic kernels in the Linux or Unix sense—at all times they both had some measure of sandboxing between e.g. driver code and the scheduler—rather sitting somewhere between. True microkernels are, alas, more of an ideology than a practical reality, as the long-suffering GNU/HURD team discovered; Tanenbaum has been clear that the MINIX/NetBSD experiment was more about principles than performance. That said, certainly many hypervisors have attained success with configurations that coincidentally happen to be the same footprint as a microkernel.
- vacuity 2y ago
  The hypervisor/microkernel boundary has blurred, and commercial success for microkernels is more or less as hypervisors, e.g. OKL4 is widely used in mobile devices[0]. And Tanenbaum's Minix is used for the Intel Management Engine. I don't know the details with HURD, but I don't think it is mainly suffering from "inherent" or "nearly-inherent" (strongly associated) problems of microkernels. The main cost of microkernels is developer effort and likely performance overhead. [0] https://vita.militaryembedded.com/5159-open-virtualization-arm-cortex-a15-processor/ https://vita.militaryembedded.com/5159-open-virtualization-a...
- snvzz 2y ago
  >the long-suffering GNU/HURD team discovered; HURD is Mach-based; it is stuck in a pre-L4 world and thus irrelevant to this conversation. Very 40 years ago technology. Still better than ~60yr ago UNIX, although they're trying to ultimately be UNIX-like. It is sad Mach and HURD still keep coming up in microkernel discussion.
  - naasking 2y ago
    Maybe not that irrelevant, since another desktop and mobile operating system used around the world is also based on Mach.
ryao 2y ago
NT and XNU never had microkernel origins - Cutler explicitly refuted this at a conference in the early 1990s Interestingly, the Tanenbaum–Torvalds debate had Tanenbaum claim otherwise at the very start: The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing, interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O. Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the not-yet-released Windows/NT. https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.minix/c/wlhw16QWltI https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.minix/c/wlhw16QWltI That is why I thought Windows NT had originally been intended to be a microkernel.
- p_ing 2y ago
  NT incorporates a client/server model, like a microkernel, but isn't a "pure" microkernel like Mach. This gives rise to the 'hybrid kernel' term, which Linus dislikes. Wikipedia has a decent depiction of the hybrid structure, but quoting from the NT Design Workbook: > This specification describes the kernel layer of the NT OS/2 operating system. The kernel is responsible for thread dispatching, multiprocessor synchronization, hardware exception handling, and the implementation of low-level machine dependent functions. > The kernel is used by the executive layer of the system to synchronize its activities and to implement the higher levels of abstraction that are exported in user-level API's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1#Architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1#Architecture

microtonal 2y ago

NeXTSTEP forked Mach at version 2.5 Various sources state that they rebased to OSF Mach Kernel 7.3, which was based on Mach 3 and parts of Mach 4. The OSF MK ancestry of macOS XNU can still be seen in paths: https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu/tree/main/osfmk https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu/tree/main/osf...

rhet0rica 2y ago
This is quite a ship-of-Theseus problem. Steve Jobs hired Avi Tevanian to work at NeXT on the Mach kernel, and later brought Tevanian to Apple; he was still working on the Mach/Darwin kernel as late as the first iPhone release. There is a reasonable argument to be made that the OSF kernel is actually the derivative, by default.
- p_ing 2y ago
  There are a few references to the OSF Mach kernel from '98 in a few files, such as https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu/blob/main/osfmk/ipc/ipc_init.h https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu/blob/main/osf... EDIT: Apple calls out Mach 3.0. https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/Architecture/Architecture.html https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Da... https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/Mach/Mach.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000905-CH209-TPXREF101 https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Da... Apple took Mach 3.0 and collapsed it into a single address space for performance purposes. Certainly reasonable.
netbsdusers 2y ago
As far as I can tell (this isn't gospel, just something I've inferred as the only reasonable explanation from comparing the codebases), Apple reconstructed a Mach 2.5 style kernel, like NeXTSTEP had, from fresh codebases (OSF Mach and 4.4BSD-Lite2), perhaps because 4.3BSD was still encumbered at the time. The Darwin 0.1 and 0.3 releases contain the old kernel, derived directly from NeXTSTEP, and that's the direct derivative of Mach 2.5. The later XNU appears to be a reconstruction of that kernel with unencumbered code and that's also when IOKit replaced DriverKit.

rhet0rica 2y ago

In more recent interviews Cutler has been firm that the NT kernel was designed pragmatically, a view that Tevanian also evidently later adopted, as evident with the great wheel of incarnation that Darwin went through on the road to XNU, although I'm not sure Tevanian ever stated his perspectives on this matter publicly. Neither of these systems were ever true monolithic kernels in the Linux or Unix sense—at all times they both had some measure of sandboxing between e.g. driver code and the scheduler—rather sitting somewhere between. True microkernels are, alas, more of an ideology than a practical reality, as the long-suffering GNU/HURD team discovered; Tanenbaum has been clear that the MINIX/NetBSD experiment was more about principles than performance. That said, certainly many hypervisors have attained success with configurations that coincidentally happen to be the same footprint as a microkernel.

vacuity 2y ago
The hypervisor/microkernel boundary has blurred, and commercial success for microkernels is more or less as hypervisors, e.g. OKL4 is widely used in mobile devices[0]. And Tanenbaum's Minix is used for the Intel Management Engine. I don't know the details with HURD, but I don't think it is mainly suffering from "inherent" or "nearly-inherent" (strongly associated) problems of microkernels. The main cost of microkernels is developer effort and likely performance overhead. [0] https://vita.militaryembedded.com/5159-open-virtualization-arm-cortex-a15-processor/ https://vita.militaryembedded.com/5159-open-virtualization-a...
snvzz 2y ago
>the long-suffering GNU/HURD team discovered; HURD is Mach-based; it is stuck in a pre-L4 world and thus irrelevant to this conversation. Very 40 years ago technology. Still better than ~60yr ago UNIX, although they're trying to ultimately be UNIX-like. It is sad Mach and HURD still keep coming up in microkernel discussion.
- naasking 2y ago
  Maybe not that irrelevant, since another desktop and mobile operating system used around the world is also based on Mach.

ryao 2y ago

NT and XNU never had microkernel origins - Cutler explicitly refuted this at a conference in the early 1990s Interestingly, the Tanenbaum–Torvalds debate had Tanenbaum claim otherwise at the very start: The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing, interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O. Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the not-yet-released Windows/NT. https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.minix/c/wlhw16QWltI https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.minix/c/wlhw16QWltI That is why I thought Windows NT had originally been intended to be a microkernel.

p_ing 2y ago
NT incorporates a client/server model, like a microkernel, but isn't a "pure" microkernel like Mach. This gives rise to the 'hybrid kernel' term, which Linus dislikes. Wikipedia has a decent depiction of the hybrid structure, but quoting from the NT Design Workbook: > This specification describes the kernel layer of the NT OS/2 operating system. The kernel is responsible for thread dispatching, multiprocessor synchronization, hardware exception handling, and the implementation of low-level machine dependent functions. > The kernel is used by the executive layer of the system to synchronize its activities and to implement the higher levels of abstraction that are exported in user-level API's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1#Architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1#Architecture