Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] livepatch: consistency model

[Jiri Kosina]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> > How about we take a slightly different aproach -- put a probe (or ftrace) 
> > on __switch_to() during a klp transition period, and examine stacktraces 
> > for tasks that are just about to start running from there?
> > 
> > The only tasks that would not be covered by this would be purely CPU-bound 
> > tasks that never schedule. But we are likely in trouble with those anyway, 
> > because odds are that non-rescheduling CPU-bound tasks are also 
> > RT-priority tasks running on isolated CPUs, which we will fail to handle 
> > anyway.
> > 
> > I think Masami used similar trick in his kpatch-without-stopmachine 
> > aproach.
> 
> Yeah, that's definitely an option, though I'm really not too crazy about
> it.  Hooking into the scheduler is kind of scary and disruptive.  

This is basically about running a stack checking for ->next before 
switching to it, i.e. read-only operation (admittedly inducing some 
latency, but that's the same with locking the runqueue). And only when in 
transition phase.

> We'd also have to wake up all the sleeping processes.

Yes, I don't think there is a way around that.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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/