Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
article
Free access

On the duality of operating system structures

Published: 01 April 1979 Publication History

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, and C. Pierson, "Overview of the Hydra Operating System Development," Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Operating Systems Principals, Austin, Texas, November, 1975.
[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]
C. M. Geschke, J. H. Morris, and E. H. Satterthwaite, "Early experience with Mesa," Proceedings of ACM Conference on Language Design for Reliable Software, Raleigh, North Carolina, March 1977.
[6]
C. A. R. Hoare, "Monitors: An Operating System Structuring Concept," Communications of the ACM, 17, 10, pp. 549--557, October 1974.
[7]
R. M. Needharm and R. D. H. Walker, "The Cambridge CAP Computer and it protection system," Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Operating System Principles, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, November 1977.
[8]
R. M. Needham, "The CAP project - interim evaluation," Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Operating System Principles, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, November 1977.
[9]
B. J. Stroustrup, "On unifying module interfaces," Operating System Review, 12, 1, pp. 90--98, January 1978.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review
ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review  Volume 13, Issue 2
April 1979
42 pages
ISSN:0163-5980
DOI:10.1145/850657
Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 April 1979
Published in SIGOPS Volume 13, Issue 2

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)442
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)54
Reflects downloads up to 10 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media