Hello Octavian, At Tue, 3 Nov 2015 22:20:31 +0200, Octavian Purdila wrote: > > > Q: How is LKL different from LibOS? > A: LibOS re-implements high-level kernel APIs for timers, softirqs, > scheduling, sysctl, SLAB/SLUB, etc. LKL behaves like any arch port, > implementing the arch level operations requested by the Linux kernel. LKL > also offers a host interface so that support for multiple hosts can be > easily implemented. I review most of code with the help of document and paper (2010). I think LKL and LibOS are essentially the same thing. I describe the current differences of both features, which I believe there are no fundamental ones (i.e., both can improve by putting some efforts). - LKL (beautiful) arch implementation (I like it) fully kbuild compliant rich fs support host support: POSIX, win, haiku, etc - LibOS existing application integration (semi-automated) system call table generation multiple process support (via system call proxy) various network backends (raw socket, DPDK, netmap, tap) symbol namespace separation host support: == rump hypercall (POSIX, xen, qemu/kvm/baremetal(under development)), ns-3 simulator # I can't find network support within the current patch but there is/will be a certain code that LKL can play with networking subsystem. existing application integration is really important when you want to configure network stack: since the configuration of file systems is just a mount(), but configurations of network stack need much userspace applications like iproute2 (ip, ss, tc) etc, which is not trivial to re-implement. -- Hajime -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
