[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 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

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.

Jiri Kosina

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-18 11:01    [W:0.133 / U:15.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site