In operating systems, which statement best captures the purpose of interprocess communication (IPC) among concurrently running processes?

Introduction / Context:
Interprocess communication (IPC) encompasses mechanisms that let processes exchange data and coordinate execution. In multi-programmed and multi-core systems, IPC enables cooperation, modular design, and safe sharing of resources. The question asks for the most accurate general statement about IPC’s role.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Multiple processes may run concurrently.
• They may need to share data or sequence critical actions.
• Operating systems provide IPC primitives (for example, pipes, message queues, shared memory, semaphores, sockets).

Concept / Approach:
The essence of IPC is coordination and synchronization. Processes use IPC to send messages, share buffers, and enforce ordering (for example, producer before consumer). While many processes are independent and need no IPC, those that cooperate rely on it to synchronize and exchange information. IPC is not “usually via disk drives”; although files can be used, efficient IPC uses OS primitives optimized for interprocess data paths and signaling.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Classic producer-consumer and client-server patterns require IPC for correctness and throughput; removing IPC leads to races or deadlocks, demonstrating its coordination purpose.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Is required for all processes: Many standalone programs need none.
• Usually via disk drives: Inefficient and not typical for real-time coordination.
• Is never necessary: Refuted by countless cooperative applications.
• None of the above: Incorrect because synchronization is the core function.

Common Pitfalls:
Thinking IPC is only data passing and forgetting synchronization, or assuming files on disk are the primary IPC path instead of dedicated OS mechanisms.

Final Answer:
Allows processes to synchronize activity