[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230127170946.zey6xbr4sm4kvh3x@treble>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 09:09:46 -0800
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
"Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean)" <sforshee@...italocean.com>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] vhost: improve livepatch switching for heavily
loaded vhost worker kthreads
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 08:52:38AM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:37:02AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 08:43:55PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > Here's another idea, have we considered this? Have livepatch set
> > > TIF_NEED_RESCHED on all kthreads to force them into schedule(), and then
> > > have the scheduler call klp_try_switch_task() if TIF_PATCH_PENDING is
> > > set.
> > >
> > > Not sure how scheduler folks would feel about that ;-)
>
> Hmmmm, with preemption I guess the above doesn't work for kthreads
> calling cond_resched() instead of what vhost_worker() does (explicit
> need_resched/schedule).
Though I guess we could hook into cond_resched() too if we make it a
non-NOP for PREEMPT+LIVEPATCH?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists