[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1605182221420.31937@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 22:22:33 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
cc: Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model
On Wed, 18 May 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Yeah, I think this situation -- a task sleeping on an affected function
> in uninterruptible state for a long period of time -- would be
> exceedingly rare and not something we need to worry about for now.
Plus in case task'd be in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE for more than 120s, hung
task detector would trigger anyway.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists