From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tuhs-bounces@tuhs.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:146::1])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973E323A63
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>; Sun, 19 May 2024 03:21:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360394368A;
	Sun, 19 May 2024 11:21:22 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250])
	by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C96143677
	for <tuhs@tuhs.org>; Sun, 19 May 2024 11:21:15 +1000 (AEST)
Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546)
	id A83EE35E919; Sat, 18 May 2024 18:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 18:21:14 -0700
From: Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>
To: Bakul Shah <bakul@iitbombay.org>
Message-ID: <20240519012114.GU9216@mcvoy.com>
References: <CAKH6PiWr1YXhHUrgy=NW5gerDGrBnxMYEPtv1x1ho+n4FmFUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKzdPgwr6=vND7vF-3+Amof=WEf6fqCN2gOsPmXB0_9Gy9U_rA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240514111032.2kotrrjjv772h5f4@illithid>
 <CAEoi9W6dsfSJUpNpKdhDeTasM8ecVxWs6PaRQwDqvo7w7LNTcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240515164212.beswgy4h2nwvbdck@illithid>
 <8D556958-0C7F-43F3-8694-D7391E9D89DA@iitbombay.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8D556958-0C7F-43F3-8694-D7391E9D89DA@iitbombay.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Message-ID-Hash: ANU75QJR2V7COYDOSL4OMW7IKRUQJ3OE
X-Message-ID-Hash: ANU75QJR2V7COYDOSL4OMW7IKRUQJ3OE
X-MailFrom: lm@mcvoy.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list <tuhs@tuhs.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1
Precedence: list
Subject: [TUHS] Re: If forking is bad, how about buffering?
List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list <tuhs.tuhs.org>
Archived-At: <https://www.tuhs.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/tuhs@tuhs.org/message/ANU75QJR2V7COYDOSL4OMW7IKRUQJ3OE/>
List-Archive: <https://www.tuhs.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/tuhs@tuhs.org/>
List-Help: <mailto:tuhs-request@tuhs.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tuhs-owner@tuhs.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tuhs@tuhs.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tuhs-join@tuhs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tuhs-leave@tuhs.org>

On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 06:04:23PM -0700, Bakul Shah via TUHS wrote:
> [1] This brings up a separate point: in a microkernel even a simple
> thing like "foo | bar" would require a third process - a "pipe
> service", to buffer up the output of foo! You may have reduced
> the overhead of individual syscalls but you will have more of
> cross-domain calls!

Do any micro kernels do address space to address space bcopy()?
-- 
---
Larry McVoy           Retired to fishing          http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat