[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150212130121.GC18578@treble.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 07:01:21 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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 01:42:01PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> All running (reasonably alive) tasks will be running patched code though.
>
> You can't just claim complete victory (and get ready for accepting another
> patch, etc) if there is a long-time sleeper that hasn't been converted
> yet.
Agreed. And also we have several strategies for reducing the time
needed to get all tasks to a patched state (see patch 9 of this series
for more details). The goal is to not leave systems in limbo for more
than a few seconds.
--
Josh
--
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