I recently started working on my own operating system. I am following jsandler18‘s awesome tutorial and making changes as I go to allow it to run on the raspberry pi 4.
Sadly, jsandler18 stopped updating the tutorial before he had finished the page on virtual memory. I read through some other sources, and found a little problem: The ARM l1 address translation table divides the computers RAM into 1-MB blocks. The problem here is that it only allows up to 4096 entries, or 4GB of virtual ram.
Is there some way I can use the ARM MMU to translate more than 4GB of virtual memory?
The tutorial being referenced appears to be executing in ARMV7, which can be thought of as 32-bit ARM. This is roughly equivalent to running in 32-bit PAE mode in X86. Thus using this example it is not possible to to use more that 4GB of virtual memory.
ARMV8 (or AARCH64) supports 64-bit virtual addresses, and would allow mapping more that 4GB of virtual memory.
Switching into ARMV8 is done by switching Exception levels, which are usually denoted as EL0, EL1, EL2 and EL3. The one challenge you could run into is that once you enter AARCH32 mode, you can not go to a lower exception level and switch to AARCH64. For example going from EL1 64-bit -> EL0 32-bit is supported, but going EL1 32-bit -> EL0 64-bit is not. This could pose a challenge if the firmware handing execution off to your OS is in AARCH32 mode.
i have question about KVM i could not find any satisfying answer in the net about.
Lets say i want to create 3 virtual machines on a host with 2 CPUs. I am assigning 1 cpu to 1 virtual machines. The other 2 virtual machines should be sharing 1 cpu. If it is possible i want to give 1 vm 30 % and the other one 70% of the cpu.
I know this does not make much sense but i am curious and want to test is :-)
I know that hypervisors like onapp can do that. But how do they do it?
KVM represents each virtual CPU as a thread in the host Linux system, actually as a thread in the QEMU process. So scheduling of guest VCPUs is controlled by the Linux scheduler.
On Linux, you can use taskset to force specific threads onto specific CPUs. So that will let you assign one VCPU to one physical CPU and two VCPUs to another. See, for example, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linuxkernelnewbies/qs5IiIA4xnw.
As far as controlling what percent of the CPU each VM gets, Linux has several scheduling policies available, but I'm not familiar with them. Any information you can find on how to control scheduling of Linux processes will apply to KVM.
The answers to this question may help: https://serverfault.com/questions/313333/kvm-and-virtual-to-physical-cpu-mapping. (Also that forum may be a better place for this question, since this one is intended for programming questions.)
If you search for "KVM virtual CPU scheduling" and "Linux CPU scheduling" (without the quotes), you should find plenty of additional information.
I am trying to understand hardware assisted virtualization for a project with ARM CortexA8 and using the ARM Trustzone feature. I am new to this topic therefore I started with Wiki entries to understand more.
Wikipedia explains hardware assisted virtialization and adds a line in the definitionas:
Full virtualization is used to simulate a complete hardware
environment, or virtual machine, in which an unmodified guest
operating system (using the same instruction set as the host machine)
executes in complete isolation.
The text in bold is a bit confusing. How is the same instruction set of the processor used to provide two isolated environment? Can someone explain it? ArmTrustzone manual also talk of a "virtual processor core" to provide security. Please throw some light.
thanks
The phrase "using the same instruction set as the host machine" means that the guest OS is not aware of the virtualization layer and behaves as if it is executed on a real machine (with the same instruction set). This is in contrast to the para-virtualization paradigm in which the guest OS is aware of virtualization and calls some specific VMM functions, i.e. hypercalls.
No, CPU has not additional instructions. Virtual machine instruction set is translated by a hypervisor component called VMM (virtual machine manager) to be executed on the physical CPU.
Physical CPU with assisted Virtualization introduced only a new ring 0 mode called VMX that allow the virtual machine to execute some instructions in ring 0.
I have developed a Linux block device driver for CD device. The driver is working well but now there is a requirement that it should run on a SMP system. When I did a test run on the SMP system, I found the performance of the driver to degrade. The Bit rate for DATA CD has gone down tremendously as compared to single core system. So I understand that my driver needs to be modified to make it SMP safe.
In my driver , I have used :
1. Kernel threads
2. Mutex
3. Semaphore
4. Completions
My SMP system is : ARM Cortex-A9 Dual Core 600 MHz
Can some one please tell me what all factors that I should keep in mind while doing this porting?
Normally for SMP systems the shared resources (I/O resources) and global variables must be handled in such a way that simultaneous execution of a task must not overwrite, corrupt the data for this you can use spin_locks, semaphores etc to ensure that only one core will perform operation on that block/task at a time. This is logical implementation you've to identify the potential risky areas in device driver like ISR, read and write operations and have to identify the multiple entry points of your device driver and central task (in driver) toward which they are/will going/go.
According to a marked answer on stackoverflow.com here and another reference here, I understand that :
Hypervisor virtualization = below the OS and a hardware virtualization where the hardware is designed to support virtualization
Non-Hypervisor virtualization = on top of the OS (like an application software), that is purely software virtualization
But we do also have Type1 and Type2 classifications for hypervisors and it seems to me that Type2 is purely Software Virtualization ... so does this mean that Non-Hypervisor Virtualization is equivalent to Type 2 Hypervisor or are there some subtle differences??
Or is it the case that these terms all are loosely defined??
Thanks in advance.
it seems to me that Type2 is purely Software Virtualization
Don't conflate "Type 1 vs Type 2" and "Hardware vs Software" Virtualization. In fact, there is actually a middle ground between hardware and software: There is Full hardware (HVM), "partial" hardware (PVM), and Pure Software (SW).
I'll try to clarify by expanding all 6 combinations:
Type 1 + Full Hardware (HVM) - This allows a hypervisor like Xen HVM to boot an unmodified guest OS. This is actually slow because the hypervisor must decode "telegraph messages" that the guest OS is trying to send to the hardware. (i.e. writing to the disk drive involves repeatedly storing bytes in location 0xblahblah.)
Type 1 + Paravirtualization (PVM) - This is when you modify the guest OS a little to call the Hypervisor directly for some tasks, like disk I/O. This is faster because the guest just says "here, write this page of bytes" and doesn't have to do (virtualized) I/O on each byte. You know you're doing PVM when you install special drivers. Of course, sometimes the OS has virtual drivers built in already. For example, any modern Linux kernel will switch to PVM mode at boot automatically when it detects it's running under Xen, KVM, UML, etc.
Type 1 + Pure Software (SW) - I'm not sure if this exists, but it wouldn't be that hard to build. Since software emulation is slow, the overhead of booting a real OS and running Type 2 isn't a big deal.
Type 2 + Full Hardware (HVM) - This allows you to boot an un-modified Windows under VirtualBox or KVM. You know it's type 2 when you can reboot all your Guests and still play MP3s in the background :)
Type 2 + Paravirtualization (PVM) - This happens any time you install guest drivers, or boot a modern Linux kernel under VirtualBox/KVM.
Type 2 + Pure Software (SW) - early versions of Bochs and Qemu. (Latter versions actually have hardware assisted modes too.) You can tell they are "pure software" because they allow you to run software that you normally can't run without it. (i.e. I've run Windows '95 under Bochs on an ARM processor, and I've booted an ARM distro on an x86 under Qemu.)
There is also another subject that is unlike the above:
Container technology. Containers like Docker/Rkt/LXD don't fit in the above table. Applications in Containers are ordinary programs calling the kernel in ordinary ways, no Hypervisor involved.
It's just that containers use the Kernel features of cgroups and namespaces to make an app "feel" like it's in a VM. Each container gets a 'partitioned' view of the system: It's own filesystem, it's own user IDs, it's own process IDs, it's own hostname + IP address, etc. But from the outside, you can see all processes in all containers with 'ps'.
In my mind, Non-Hypervisor virtualization means a virtualization layer that runs something OTHER than an OS on top of it -- most commonly virtualizing the user-level environment of some other operatoring system. For example, the WINE project is non-hypervisor virtualization -- it allows running win32 programs on a linux (or other) host. There's no attempt to run an actual Windows OS or emulate 'bare' hardware for a virtualized OS. Instead the virtual layer provides the user-level abstractions and system calls for windows directly.
Contrast this with a hypervisor which may be either type 1 (running on bare metal) or type2 (running on an OS) and which provides hardware-level abstractions and which you run an entire OS on top of.
A Hypervisor, by definition, emulates hardware. (That may or may not physically exist) - it may virtualize some as well.
Virtualization intercepts a call and redirects it elsewhere.
They are two different but interrelated topics.
Type 1 Hypervisors run on "bare metal" and sit between the hardware and your virtual operating systems (the hypervisor itself is the operating system). For example, VMWare ESX, Citrix XenServer or Microsoft Hyper-V
Type 2 Hypervisors run on top of your existing operating system and may support either hardware or software virtualization. For example both QEmu and Bochs) emulate an entire CPU, optionally even a different CPU architecture. Both are Type 2 Hypervisors but have significant overhead on performance due to the emulation required.
VMware Workstation/Server/Player/Fusion, Parallels, Virtualbox are all examples of Type 2 hypervisors that support Hardware-assisted Virtualization - this means rather than emulating the CPU instructions, the CPU instructions can pass through directly with no emulation or translation -- effectively running with no loss of performance if the processor supports it.
Next up, non-hypervisor virtualization which is (effectively) application virtualization. The hardware itself is not being emulated in any way at all, the virtualization layer is just intercepting certain system calls and virtualizing those. Examples in this category include VMWare Thinapp, Microsoft App-V and many more. Windows Vista itself virtualizes certain registry and disk writes to areas where the user doesn't have permission to write. This virtualization in Vista is critical for backwards compatibility with many legacy applications.
Finally we have pure emulators - no virtualization is happening here. In this category we have WINE and to some extent Cygwin. Also Bochs fits in this category as well as a Type 2 Hypervisor since there is no virtualization, just hardware emulation. DOSEMU is another one that fits in here.
I'm sure I've missed plenty of examples, but
(I'll post my comment to #answer-16868851 here since I miss few points to fulfill "You must have 50 reputation to comment" requirement)
BraveNewCurrency writes:
Type 1 + Pure Software (SW) - I'm not sure if this exists, but it wouldn't be that hard to build. Since software emulation is slow, the overhead of booting a real OS and running Type 2 isn't a big deal.
So far I've found only one Type 1 hypervisor capable of doing this -- it's VMware ESXi.
vSphere 5 Documentation Center | ESXi Hardware Requirements say:
■ To support 64-bit virtual machines, support for hardware virtualization (Intel VT-x or AMD RVI) must be enabled on x64 CPUs.
Hence, 32-bit guests work without VT-x in it.
As I see zero competition for it camed (either proprietary or opensource), I guess trapping sensitive CPU instructions without VT-x support (that is in Pure Software) is serious challenge in practice.
While following doesn't relate to the original question already, v5.0 (and v4.x) requires 64-bit support from CPU though:
■ ESXi 5.0 will install and run only on servers with 64-bit x86 CPUs.
■ ESXi 5.0 requires a host machine with at least two cores.
Those interested in running Type 1 + SW hypervisor on 32-bit machines (like me) may use it's earlier versions. Minimum system requirements for installing ESXi/ESX (1003661) says:
ESX 3.5.x
The hardware requirements for ESX 3.5.x are the same as those listed in the ESX 3.0.x section, with the following additions.
[...]
ESX 3.0.x
You need these hardware and system resources to install and use ESX 3:
At least two processors:
1500 MHz Intel Xeon and above, or AMD Opteron (32bit mode) for ESX
1500 MHz Intel Xeon and above, or AMD Opteron (32bit mode) for Virtual SMP
1500 MHz Intel Viiv or AMD A64 x2 dual-core processors
+ ESX 3.5 Installation Guide repeats this in following section / subsection:
ESX Server 3 Requirements
This section discusses the minimum and maximum hardware configurations supported by ESX Server 3 version 3.5.
Minimum Server Hardware Requirements
...
Hence, Pure (and 32-bit only) Software :)