Hello Anton,
thanks for the comment. On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:26:07 +0900, Anton Ivanov wrote: > > What do others think? Would you use it? What for? > > I always thought of it as "another LKL". In that case, it can be compared > to LKL on merit and if it is equivalent or better - go into kernel. > > If there is another use case, I will be glad to hear it. In a high-level view, the usage is different (no merit/demerit). LKL is used with userspace binaries, linked with, or dynamically replaced with the liblinux.so. LKL has a userspace API derived from syscall interface, which can be used to bridge LKL-world and host-kernel world (not specific to Linux host). This patchset (nommu UML) doesn't change the usage of current UML. In an internal implementation point of view, both (LKL and nommu-UML) uses !MMU. While LKL can be implemented with MMU-full configuration, we found (the last patch was back in 2021) that it is not trivial. LKL has no process model, currently only runs in a single (LKL) process. no vfork(2) support. nommu-UML can host multiple processes with vfork available. the patch size is: LKL (last v8 patch): mostly 5k lines of modifications nommu-UML: 1.2k lines of mods. I think it looks like similar (as I'm from LKL which also uses !MMU), but different from various aspects. let me know if you wish to see more about the comparison. -- Hajime
