Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: make text_poke() atomic

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> .... but text_poke() realistically needs to call stop_machine() since
> you can't poke live code.... so that makes me wonder how useful this
> is...

Well, not always. There's at least two cases where we don't need it:

 - in the UP -> SMP transition.

 - perhaps more interestingly, we're still kind of waiting for the 
   resolution of the whole "nop out the first byte to a single-byte 'irq3' 
   trap instruction, then rewrite the rest of the instruction, and then 
   reset the first byte of the final instruction" thing.

IOW, there are possible non-stop_machine() models where rewriting 
instructions in a live system does work, and quite frankly, I think we 
need them. Making the rule be the (obviously safe) "we can only do this in 
stop_machine" is quite possibly not going to be an acceptable rule and we 
may need alternatives.

			Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/