lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model
    On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:16:22AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
    > On Tue, 17 May 2016, Jessica Yu wrote:
    >
    > > What about tasks sleeping on affected functions in uninterruptible sleep
    > > (possibly indefinitely)? Since all signals are ignored, we wouldn't be
    > > able to patch those tasks in this way, right? Would that be an
    > > unsupported case?
    >
    > I don't think there is any better way out of this situation than
    > documenting that the convergence of patching could in such cases could
    > take quite a lot of time (well, we can pro-actively try to detect this
    > situation before the patching actually start, and warn about the possible
    > consequences).
    >
    > But let's face it, this should be pretty uncommon, because (a) it's not
    > realistic for the wait times to be really indefinite (b) the task is
    > likely to be in TASK_KILLABLE rather than just plain TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE.

    Yeah, I think this situation -- a task sleeping on an affected function
    in uninterruptible state for a long period of time -- would be
    exceedingly rare and not something we need to worry about for now.

    --
    Josh

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2016-05-18 19:21    [W:4.071 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site