[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251007175038.GB3474167@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 14:50:38 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc: pratyush@...nel.org, jasonmiu@...gle.com, graf@...zon.com,
changyuanl@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org, dmatlack@...gle.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, corbet@....net, rdunlap@...radead.org,
ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com, kanie@...ux.alibaba.com,
ojeda@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com, masahiroy@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org, yoann.congal@...le.fr,
mmaurer@...gle.com, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, chenridong@...wei.com,
axboe@...nel.dk, mark.rutland@....com, jannh@...gle.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, david@...hat.com,
joel.granados@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
anna.schumaker@...cle.com, song@...nel.org, zhangguopeng@...inos.cn,
linux@...ssschuh.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, rafael@...nel.org, dakr@...nel.org,
bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org, cw00.choi@...sung.com,
myungjoo.ham@...sung.com, yesanishhere@...il.com,
Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com,
aleksander.lobakin@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, leon@...nel.org, lukas@...ner.de,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, wagi@...nel.org, djeffery@...hat.com,
stuart.w.hayes@...il.com, ptyadav@...zon.de, lennart@...ttering.net,
brauner@...nel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, saeedm@...dia.com,
ajayachandra@...dia.com, parav@...dia.com, leonro@...dia.com,
witu@...dia.com, hughd@...gle.com, skhawaja@...gle.com,
chrisl@...nel.org, steven.sistare@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/30] Live Update Orchestrator
On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 01:10:30PM -0400, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
>
> 1. Add three more callbacks to liveupdate_file_ops:
> /*
> * Optional. Called by LUO during first get global state call.
> * The handler should allocate/KHO preserve its global state object and return a
> * pointer to it via 'obj'. It must also provide a u64 handle (e.g., a physical
> * address of preserved memory) via 'data_handle' that LUO will save.
> * Return: 0 on success.
> */
> int (*global_state_create)(struct liveupdate_file_handler *h,
> void **obj, u64 *data_handle);
>
> /*
> * Optional. Called by LUO in the new kernel
> * before the first access to the global state. The handler receives
> * the preserved u64 data_handle and should use it to reconstruct its
> * global state object, returning a pointer to it via 'obj'.
> * Return: 0 on success.
> */
> int (*global_state_restore)(struct liveupdate_file_handler *h,
> u64 data_handle, void **obj);
It shouldn't be a "push" like this. Everything has a certain logical point
when it will need the luo data, it should be coded to 'pull' the data
right at that point.
> /*
> * Optional. Called by LUO after the last
> * file for this handler is unpreserved or finished. The handler
> * must free its global state object and any associated resources.
> */
> void (*global_state_destroy)(struct liveupdate_file_handler *h, void *obj);
I'm not sure a callback here is a good idea, the users are synchronous
at early boot, they should get their data and immediately process it
within the context of the caller. A 'unpack' callback does not seem so
useful to me.
> The get/put global state data:
>
> /* Get and lock the data with file_handler scoped lock */
> int liveupdate_fh_global_state_get(struct liveupdate_file_handler *h,
> void **obj);
>
> /* Unlock the data */
> void liveupdate_fh_global_state_put(struct liveupdate_file_handler *h);
Maybe lock/unlock if it is locking.
It seems like a good direction overall. Really need to see how it
works with some examples
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists