Re: [RFC] sched,livepatch: call klp_try_switch_task in __cond_resched

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 06:09:28PM +0000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 18:12 -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:46:32AM +0000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 17:37 -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:35:11AM +0000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 23:57 +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So, if we come back to the same question: is this a bug (or a
> > > > > > suboptimal
> > > > > > behavior that worth fixing)? If so, we are open to any
> > > > > > solution
> > > > > > that 
> > > > > > would also help PREEMPT and/or non-x86 arches. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > Using the preempt notifiers during KLP transition should
> > > > > work equally well for PREEMPT and !PREEMPT. It also does
> > > > > not insert any additional code into the scheduler while
> > > > > there is no KLP transition going on.
> > > > 
> > > > As I've been saying, this is not going to work for PREEMPT
> > > > because,
> > > > without ORC, we can't reliably unwind from an IRQ handler, so the
> > > > kthread won't get patched.
> > > > 
> > > Isn't the sched_out preempt notifier always run in
> > > process context?
> > > 
> > > What am I missing?
> > 
> > Maybe it's technically process context at that point.  But the
> > important
> > point is that the call to the scheduler via preempt_schedule_irq()
> > originates from the "return from interrupt" path.
> 
> Ahhhh, I think I understand.
> 
> Does that mean if the scheduling of the kernel thread originated
> from an IRQ, the KLP transition will fail probably?

It will fail definitely, unless you have the ORC unwinder.

> However, if the call to schedule came from a voluntary preemption,
> for example through a cond_resched() or due to the thread going
> to sleep a little bit, the stack walk will be reliable, and the
> KLP transition may succeed?

Right.

-- 
Josh