[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1502201052050.28769@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:02:36 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched: add sched_task_call()
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So if your design is based on being able to discover 'live' functions in
> the kernel stack dump of all tasks in the system, I think you need a
> serious reboot of the whole approach and get rid of that fragility
> before any of that functionality gets upstream!
So let me repeat again, just to make sure that no more confusion is being
spread around -- there are aproaches which do rely on stack contents, and
aproaches which don't. kpatch (the Red Hat solution) and ksplice (the
Oracle solution) contains stack analysis as a conceptual design step,
kgraft (the SUSE solution) doesn't.
Also the limited (in features -- consistency models) common infrastructure
that is currently upstream doesn't care about stack contents.
We are now figuring out which consistency models make sense for upstream,
and how they can be achieved. Josh's patchset is one of the aproaches that
is currently being discussed, but it's not the only available option.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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