From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91B20190685; Sun, 28 Sep 2025 14:22:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759069363; cv=none; b=EoGra7j9izDeMrj1N0JnaRC1hye16QHluqI6CUTqDc/xOTVy6hmun4hs2ALpw4Sfu3SRy0OLSHmL8VkDxHGtzWQCsRkHckWmrPbKLceZtT83tw+ZfZ4y5zrJ19hrvBPeUgAhqJXxzvOdUpMcsiO8AkrMHe36BJN8XkyV+7pPyXM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759069363; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Wg1xrNCbGg8db7MqipyCxrrsmMoVbFCLhcRL36NHECw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=kYWxVp+U1HrGBqhD+pZGwZbgT90A0ZjF1esak8Lu+0wb6Bvgl8QfipidHlYke5IPjbRiKrC0UA7QnpCGxiZ6yV0nfHVuIAwjLPxxuah3WX6BAMzrtIbN0xyrKsM1tbXBPkflnsSJ6+USZPgoOG0xG839JoAR3SQJ9taajFgeeoc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=TIaEscUT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="TIaEscUT" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BA39C4CEF0; Sun, 28 Sep 2025 14:22:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1759069363; bh=Wg1xrNCbGg8db7MqipyCxrrsmMoVbFCLhcRL36NHECw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=TIaEscUT6E8LJ+NgIrEGjJB2yfmv0DOXQQ3iMgMZewcagvseJj47Zq7TbBcssaQgr rGIH8EVofkWfFbNGyD9UNbpBzi0pz53pYgVouaJYpMKlmDvy9TBwMU+olwn269wf9J T41s4Q3jouYy2lr5tDBEQeiT/eoFSGDOpL0XPUbw3HPWZzVFw+J1z4pE4VH/K+coWe +c/sMEtUxdRwap2G1mPwgXnfFvVaq8LZWqUcrV5n0ZbIzim4JDZucgNI0bkZKhnNWH GRpY/iuBWdp1Ds9iYdYd19AHQgmgAmb9vfi62Kfzhqnu81lPLCvD1oo91CKyc1gyRj N9WRiNJ694s/w== Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:22:38 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Cong Wang Cc: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, Cong Wang , Andrew Morton , Baoquan He , Alexander Graf , Mike Rapoport , Changyuan Lyu , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, multikernel@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 0/7] kernel: Introduce multikernel architecture support Message-ID: References: <20250918222607.186488-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> <78127855-104f-46e2-e5d2-52c622243b08@gentwo.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 01:43:23PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 2:50 AM Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:39:44AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 10:51 AM Christoph Lameter (Ampere) > > > wrote: > > > > AFAICT various contemporary Android deployments do the multiple kernel > > > > approach in one way or another already for security purposes and for > > > > specialized controllers. However, the multi kernel approaches are often > > > > depending on specialized and dedicated hardware. It may be difficult to > > > > support with a generic approach developed here. > > > > > > You are right, the multikernel concept is indeed pretty old, the BarrelFish > > > OS was invented in around 2009. Jailhouse was released 12 years ago. > > > There are tons of papers in this area too. > > > > Jailhouse is quite nice actually. Perhaps you should pick that up > > instead, and start refining and improving it? I'd be interested to test > > refined jailhouse patches. It's also easy build test images having the > > feature both with BuildRoot and Yocto. > > Static partitioning is not a bad choice, except it is less flexible. We can't > get dynamic resource allocation with just static partitioning, but we can > easily get static partitioning with dynamic allocation, in fact, it should be > the default case. > > In my own opinion, the reason why containers today are more popular > than VM's is not just performance, it is elasticity too. Static partitioning > is essentially against elasticity. How do you make a popularity comparison between VMs and containers, and what does the word "popularity" means in the context? The whole world runs basically runs with guest VMs (just go to check AWS, Azure, Oracle Cloud and what not). The problem in that argument is that there is no problem. BR, Jarkko