[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 11:14:16 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
martin.lau@...nel.org, joshdon@...gle.com, brho@...gle.com,
pjt@...gle.com, derkling@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com,
dvernet@...a.com, dschatzberg@...a.com, dskarlat@...cmu.edu,
riel@...riel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET RFC] sched: Implement BPF extensible scheduler class
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:22:42PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Rolling out kernel upgrades is a slow and iterative process. At a large scale
> it can take months to roll a new kernel out to a fleet of servers. While this
> latency is expected and inevitable for normal kernel upgrades, it can become
> highly problematic when kernel changes are required to fix bugs. Livepatch [9]
> is available to quickly roll out critical security fixes to large fleets, but
> the scope of changes that can be applied with livepatching is fairly limited,
> and would likely not be usable for patching scheduling policies. With
> sched_ext, new scheduling policies can be rapidly rolled out to production
> environments.
I don't think we can or should use this argument to push BPF into ever
more places.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists