Re: [RFC PATCH 6/9] livepatch: create per-task consistency model

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 09:44:44PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> For live patching it doesn't matter whether code is running, sleeping or
> frozen.
> 
> What matters is whether there is state before patching that may not be
> valid after patching.
> 
> For userspace tasks, the exit from a syscall is a perfect moment for
> switching to the "after" state, as all stacks, and thus all local
> variables are gone and no local state exists in the kernel for the
> thread.
> 
> The freezer is a logical choice for kernel threads, however, given that
> kernel threads have no defined entry/exit point and execute within a
> single main function, local variables stay and thus local state persists
> from before to after freezing.
> 
> Defining that no local state within a kernel thread may be relied upon
> after exiting from the freezer is certainly possible, and is already
> true for many kernel threads.
> 
> It isn't a given property of the freezer itself, though. And isn't
> obvious for author of new kernel threads either.
> 
> The ideal solution would be to convert the majority of kernel threads to
> workqueues, because then there is a defined entry/exit point over which
> state isn't transferred. That is a lot of work, though, and has other
> drawbacks, particularly in the realtime space.

kthread_park() functionality seems to be exactly what you want.
--
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/