Re: live patching design (was: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched: add sched_task_call())
From: Josh Poimboeuf
Date: Fri Feb 20 2015 - 17:09:29 EST
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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/