The runtime

Inko's native code compiler generates code to LLVM, linked against a small runtime library written in Rust. The runtime library takes care of scheduling processes on OS threads, polling sockets for readiness, etc.

Running processes

Processes are scheduled onto a fixed-size pool of OS threads, with the default size being equal to the number of CPU cores. This can be changed by setting the environment variable INKO_PROCESS_THREADS to a value between 1 and 65 535.

The main thread

The main OS thread isn't used for anything special, instead it waits for the process threads to finish. This means that C libraries that require the use of the main thread won't work with Inko. Few libraries have such requirements, most of which are GUI libraries, and these probably won't work with Inko anyway due to their heavy use of callbacks, which Inko doesn't support.

Load balancing

Work is distributed using a work stealing algorithm. Each thread has a bounded local queue that they produce work on, and other threads can steal work from this queue.

When new work is produced but the queue is full, the work is instead pushed onto a global queue all threads have access to. Threads perform work in these steps:

  1. Run all processes in the local queue
  2. Steal processes from another thread
  3. Steal processes from the global queue
  4. Go to sleep until new work is pushed onto the global queue


The scheduler uses cooperative multitasking, driven by the compiler. At various points in the code, the compiler injects some extra code (called a "preemption point") that checks if control should be yielded back to the scheduler.

Processes are given a time slice of 10 milliseconds, but may take a little longer to run depending on their workload. The end goal is not to guarantee a time slice of an exact amount of time, but rather to prevent a process from never yielding back to the scheduler (i.e. when running an infinite loop).

Past versions used a fuel/reduction based approach similar to Erlang, but the overhead was too great, see this issue for more details.


Processes can suspend themselves with a timeout, or await a future for up to a certain amount of time. A separate thread called the "timeout worker" handles managing such processes. The timeout worker uses a binary heap for storing processes along with their timeouts, sorting them such that those with the shortest timeout are processed first.

When a process suspends itself with a timeout, it stores itself in a queue owned by the timeout worker.

The timeout worker performs its work in these steps:

  1. Move messages from the synchronised queue into an unsynchronised local FIFO queue
  2. Defragment the heap by removing entries that are no longer valid (e.g. a process got rescheduled before its timeout expired)
  3. Process any new entries to add into the heap
  4. Sleep until the shortest timeout expires, taking into account time already spent sleeping for the given timeout
  5. Repeat this cycle until we shut down

If the timeout worker is asleep and a new entry is added to the synchronised queue, the worker is woken up and the cycle starts anew.

Memory management

The runtime uses the system allocator for allocating memory. In earlier versions of Inko we used a custom allocator based on Immix. We moved away from this for the following reasons:

  • The implementation was quite complex and difficult to debug
  • Immix suffers from fragmentation, and without a GC (what it's designed for) it's hard to clean up the fragmentation
  • Our implementation was unlikely to outperform highly optimised allocators such as jemalloc, so we figured we may as well use an existing allocator and direct our attention elsewhere


Strings are immutable, and need at least 41 bytes of space. To allow easy passing of strings to C, each string ends with a NULL byte on top of storing its size. This NULL byte is ignored by Inko code. When passing a string to C, we just pass the pointer to the string's bytes which includes the NULL byte.

Since C strings must be NULL terminated, the alternative would've been to create a copy of the Inko string with a NULL byte at the end. When passing C strings to Inko we'd then have to do the opposite, leading to a lot of redundant copying. Our approach instead means we can pass strings between C and Inko with almost no additional cost.

Strings use atomic reference counting when copying, meaning that a copy of a string increments the reference count instead of creating a full copy.