[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-18 19:21    [W:0.150 / U:37.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site