[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140506082604.31928cb9@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 08:26:04 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] kpatch: dynamic kernel patching
On Tue, 06 May 2014 20:45:50 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> wrote:
> However, I also think if users can accept such freezing wait-time,
> it means they can also accept kexec based "checkpoint-restart" patching.
> So, I think the final goal of the kpatch will be live patching without
> stopping the machine. I'm discussing the issue on github #138, but that is
> off-topic. :)
>
I agree with Ingo too. Being conservative at first is the right
approach here. We should start out with a stop_machine making sure that
everything is sane before we continue. Sure, that's not much different
than a kexec, but lets take things one step at a time.
ftrace did the stop_machine (and still does for some archs), and slowly
moved to a more efficient method. kpatch/kgraft should follow suit.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists