Re: [RFC Patch 0/7] kernel: Introduce multikernel architecture support

[Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 6:12 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 14:55:41 -0700 Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 6:47 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 15:25:59 -0700 Cong Wang wrote:
> > > > This patch series introduces multikernel architecture support, enabling
> > > > multiple independent kernel instances to coexist and communicate on a
> > > > single physical machine. Each kernel instance can run on dedicated CPU
> > > > cores while sharing the underlying hardware resources.
> > > >
> > > > The multikernel architecture provides several key benefits:
> > > > - Improved fault isolation between different workloads
> > > > - Enhanced security through kernel-level separation
> > > > - Better resource utilization than traditional VM (KVM, Xen etc.)
> > > > - Potential zero-down kernel update with KHO (Kernel Hand Over)
> > > >
> > > Could you illustrate a couple of use cases to help understand your idea?
> >
> > Sure, below are a few use cases on my mind:
> >
> > 1) With sufficient hardware resources: each kernel gets isolated resources
> > with real bare metal performance. This applies to all VM/container use cases
> > today, just with pure better performance: no virtualization, no noisy neighbor.
> >
> > More importantly, they can co-exist. In theory, you can run a multiernel with
> > a VM inside and with a container inside the VM.
> >
> If the 6.17 eevdf perfs better than the 6.15 one could, their co-exist wastes
> bare metal cpu cycles.

I think we should never eliminate the ability of not using multikernel, users
should have a choice. Apologize if I didn't make this clear.

And even if you only want one kernel, you might still want to use
zero-downtime upgrade via multikernel. ;-)

>
> > 2) Active-backup kernel for mission-critical tasks: after the primary kernel
> > crashes, a backup kernel in parallel immediately takes over without interrupting
> > the user-space task.
> >
> > Dual-kernel systems are very common for automotives today.
> >
> If 6.17 is more stable than 6.14, running the latter sounds like square skull
> in the product environment.

I don't think anyone here wants to take your freedom of doing so.
You also have a choice of not using multikernel or kexec, or even
CONFIG_KEXEC=n. :)

On the other hand, let's also respect the fact that many automotives
today use dual-kernel systems (one for interaction, one for autonomous
driving).

>
> > 3) Getting rid of the OS to reduce the attack surface. We could pack everything
> > properly in an initramfs and run it directly without bothering a full
> > OS. This is similar to what unikernels or macro VM's do today.
> >
> Duno

Same, choice is always on the table, it must be.

>
> > 4) Machine learning in the kernel. Machine learning is too specific to
> > workloads, for instance, mixing real-time scheduling and non-RT can be challenging for
> > ML to tune the CPU scheduler, which is an essential multi-goal learning.
> >
> No room for CUDA in kernel I think in 2025.

Maybe yes. LAKE is framework for using GPU-accelerated ML
in the kernel:
https://utns.cs.utexas.edu/assets/papers/lake_camera_ready.pdf

If you are interested in this area, there are tons of papers existing.

>
> > 5) Per-application specialized kernel: For example, running a RT kernel
> > and non-RT kernel in parallel. Memory footprint can also be reduced by
> > reducing the 5-level paging tables when necessary.
>
> If RT makes your product earn more money in fewer weeks, why is eevdf
> another option, given RT means no schedule at the first place?

I wish there is a one-single perfect solution for everyone, unfortunately
the reality seems to be the opposite.

Regards,
Cong Wang