[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150220220845.GI15980@treble.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:08:45 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
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: live patching design (was: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched: add
sched_task_call())
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:46:13PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 08:49:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I.e. it's in essence the strong stop-all atomic patching
> > model of 'kpatch', combined with the reliable avoidance of
> > kernel stacks that 'kgraft' uses.
>
> > That should be the starting point, because it's the most
> > reliable method.
>
> In the consistency models discussion, this was marked the
> "LEAVE_KERNEL+SWITCH_KERNEL" model. It's indeed the strongest model of
> all, but also comes at the highest cost in terms of impact on running
> tasks. It's so high (the interruption may be seconds or more) that it
> was deemed not worth implementing.
Yeah, this is way too disruptive to the user.
Even the comparatively tiny latency caused by kpatch's use of
stop_machine() was considered unacceptable by some.
Plus a lot of processes would see EINTR, causing more havoc.
--
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