Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 9th Feb 2013 02:04 UTC, submitted by ac
Linux "Both of these articles allude to the fact that I'm working on putting the D-Bus protocol into the kernel, in order to help achieve these larger goals of proper IPC for applications. And I'd like to confirm that yes, this is true, but it's not going to be D-Bus like you know it today. Our goal (and I use 'goal' in a very rough term, I have 8 pages of scribbled notes describing what we want to try to implement here), is to provide a reliable multicast and point-to-point messaging system for the kernel, that will work quickly and securely. On top of this kernel feature, we will try to provide a 'libdbus' interface that allows existing D-Bus users to work without ever knowing the D-Bus daemon was replaced on their system."
Permalink for comment 552090
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Finally!
by JAlexoid on Sun 10th Feb 2013 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Finally!"
Member since:

Blocking socket IO implies using either multi-process or multi-threaded models, I hope that we can agree that the forking multi-process model is the least scalable.

There is no form of IO that will imply high scalability without multi-threading or multiple processes.(nginx, lighttpd and node.js use multiple processes to scale)

However it does imply more memory/cpu overhead than the non-blocking model due to each client using it's own stack and the requirement of synchronization primitives that are usually unnecessary with the async model.

What gave you the impression that:
A) threads are expensive in memory or CPU. They are quite cheap these days.
B) synchronization of blocking IO isn't replaced with something similar in nonblocking IO. (It always is)

Reply Parent Score: 3