[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150212123906.GC23367@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:39:06 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/9] livepatch: create per-task consistency model
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:25:14PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Its not at all clear how all this would work to me. And I'm not
> > motivated enough to go try and reverse engineer your patch; IMO
> > livepatching is utter fail.
> >
> > If your infrastructure relies on the uptime of a single machine you've
> > lost already.
>
> Well, the fact indisputable fact is that there is a demand for this. It's
> not about one machine, it's about scheduling dowtimes of datacentres.
The changelog says:
> ... A patch can remain in the
> transition state indefinitely, if any of the tasks are stuck in the
> previous universe.
Therefore there is no scheduling anything. Without timeliness guarantees
you can't make a schedule.
Might as well just reboot, at least that's fairly well guaranteed to
happen.
--
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