Re: just curious

[Peter da Silva <peter-dragonfly@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     For example, DragonFly will use messaging heavily but the messaging will
>     be a light-weight design that is, by itself, incapable of transiting a
>     protection boundary.  The core messaging structures will not track 
>     pointers or message sizes, for example.  Instead what we will do is
>     support the transiting of protection boundaries by creating port
>     abstractions which do the appropriate translation into and out of forms
>     that *can* cross a protection boundary.

What a coincidence. I was just involved in a discussion on comp.arch 
where I proposed a "proxy" mechanism to avoid the overhead of "heavy" 
microkernels... I was thinking in terms of how you would map something 
like Amiga message ports into something that could cross protection 
boundaries by having a thread that just recieved messages and marshalled 
them into handles and encapsulated data before tossing them through a 
callgate to the real kernel-mode handler.

Your mechanism should be better because it gets rid of that extra thread 
without, so far as I can see, making the message passing more expensive 
within a protection boundary.

One thing that might be harder: I was looking to reduce the effect of 
the boundary crossing by taking a series of independent system calls and 
queuing them up and tossing them over the boundary together. That way 
you would be able to, for example, queue writes to multiple files, 
devices, or sockets in a single system call.

But now that I think of it you could implement a Send() function that 
did the same thing.