Skip to content

Type-1 vs Type-2 — Does it matter?


A while back I discussed how one of our competitors (in an article which is great entertainment material for all the stuff it gets wrong), had falsely claimed that OKL4 was a Type-2 hypervisor. The Type-1 vs 2 issue has since come up a few times in different contexts, and there seems to be a bit confusion out there. So let me explain why no-one in their right mind would consider using a Type-2 hypervisor in a mobile phone.

A Type-2 hypervsior runs as a normal application on top of a normal OS, which is why it’s also called a hosted hypervsior. This is great for PCs, as it allows you, for example, to run Linux or Windows inside an application on a Mac, getting a bit of the best of two worlds. To a degree, at least. Anyone who does this (for example I run Linux on VMware Fusion on a Mac) will not fail to notice that some things are clearly much slower than they are on native Linux, or even on Linux running inside a virtual machine on a Type-1 (or bare metal) hypervisor. In fact, while performance differences between native Linux and Linux running in a Type-1 virtual machine is barely noticeable, the performance degradation on a hosted hypervisor is definitely significant.

The reason is simple: with a hosted hypervisor, you need to go through many more layers of software. For one, the inherent virtualization cost is at least doubled. A syscall on a natively running OS inherently costs two mode switches. Virtualized on a bare-metal hypervisor this becomes four mode switches and two context switches. On a hosted hypervsior this blows out to eight mode switches and four context switches. All that for only getting in and out of the guest kernel. My earlier blog has a more detailed explanation.

But a much bigger impact on performance has the fact that in a Type-2 scenario, the underlying OS effectively becomes part of the hypervsior, and it isn’t designed for that. Anyone who ever played with user-mode Linux (UML), which is a Type-1 scenario but using the general-purpose Linux kernel as the hypervisor, will confirm this. The performance just isn’t competitive, besides special hacks having  been made to Linux to make UML more efficient. So, the bottom line is that Type-2 hypervisors simply can’t compete with Type-1 hypervisors in performance.

So, why would anyone in their right mind use one for mobile phones? Beats me. If you look at the typical use cases for virtualization in mobile wirless devices, you’ll see that in many of them a hosted hypervisor is simply not suitale at all. In the cases where a hosted hypervisor could be used, it has no compelling advantage over a native hypervisor, but a compelling performance disadvantage. Let’s look at the mobile virtualisation use cases:

  • Processor consolidation: now way Jose. In the typical rich-OS + RTOS scenario, are you going to host the hypervsior on the RTOS? Most of them don’t even support memory protection, leave alone support for virtualization! Or host the hypervisor on the rich OS, running the RTOS on top? Clearly you’d lose the real-time properties for which you have the RTOS in the first place
  • License separation, especially of GPL code: won’t help you with re-using Linux drivers, and will defeat most of the purpose
  • Security: yes, a hosted hypervisor will preovide encapsulation, although at a much higher cost than with a native hypervisor, so why bother?
  • Architectural abstraction: yes, but only if the underlying host OS plays ball. Again, cut out the middleman and you’ve got a winner.
  • Resource-management for upcoming manycores: you lose with a hosted hypervisor, it buys you nothing there.
  • Multiple user-environments (private and enterprise) and BYOD? Trying to do this with a hosted hypervsior would degrade at least one of the envrionments to second-class citizen status. Not only performance-wise, but also security wise: the primary environment (which is hosting the hypervisor which supports the secondary environment) is in control of resources. This means that it would be the one the enterprise IT folks would trust and need to control. And the complete BYOD idea goes right out of the window. Clearly a non-starter.
  • The same can be said about other appraoches to using the phone as a terminal to access the enterprise IT infrastructure: Trying to do this in a hosted VM means you need to trust the host OS. The whole point is you don’t want to do this.

See what I mean? For All the use cases people talk about, a Type-2 hypervisor is either totally unsuited, or is a clearly second-rate solution compared to a Type-1 hypervisor. No-one with half a clue would want to do this. If you can think of reasonable use cases for hosted VMs, you’ll find that they are adequately supported by Java. Except that using a JVM allows a much leaner solution than a Type-2 hypervisor running on a rich OS.

You’ll likely get better mileage by using Java than an Type-2 hypervisor. But the Type-1 hypervisor is clearly the way to do. This is what OK does, competitor FUD notwithstanding.

One Comment

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Much Ado About Type-2 « microkerneldude

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: