On the duality of operating system structures

ABSTRACT

Many operating system designs can be placed into one of two very rough categories, depending upon how they implement and use the notions of process and synchronization. One category, the "Message-oriented System," is characterized by a relatively small, static number of processes with an explicit message system for communicating among them. The other category, the "Procedure-oriented System," is characterized by a large, rapidly changing number of small processes and a process synchronization mechanism based on shared data.In this paper, it is demonstrated that these two categories are duals of each other and that a system which is constructed according to one model has a direct counterpart in the other. The principal conclusion is that neither model is inherently preferable, and the main consideration for choosing between them is the nature of the machine architecture upon which the system is being built, not the application which the system will ultimately support.

REFERENCES

• 1: IBM Corporation, Operating System/360: Concepts and Facilites, Poughkeepsie, New York.
• 2: General Electric Company (Marconi-Elliot Division), Borehamwood, London, Great Britain.
• 3: W. Wulf , R. Levin , C. Pierson, Overview of the Hydra Operating System development, Proceedings of the fifth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles, p.122-131, November 19-21, 1975, Austin, Texas, United States
• 4: D. M. England, "Capability concept mechanism and structure in System 250," Proceedings of the International Workshop on Protection in Operating Systems, IRIA, Rocquencourt, France, August, 1974.
• 5: Charles M. Geschke , James H. Morris, Jr. , Edwin H. Satterthwaite, Early experience with Mesa, Proceedings of an ACM conference on Language design for reliable software, p.138, March 28-30, 1977, Raleigh, North Carolina
• 6: C. A. R. Hoare, Monitors: an operating system structuring concept, Communications of the ACM, v.17 n.10, p.549-557, Oct. 1974 [doi>10.1145/355620.361161]
• 7: R. M. Needham , R. D.H. Walker, The Cambridge CAP computer and its protection system, Proceedings of the sixth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles, p.1-10, November 16-18, 1977, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States
• 8: R. M. Needham, The CAP project - an interim evaluation, Proceedings of the sixth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles, p.17-22, November 16-18, 1977, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States
• 9: Bjarne Stroustrup, On unifying module interfaces, ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, v.12 n.1, p.90-98, January 1978 [doi>10.1145/775323.775330]