On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 03:34:50PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the updated version.
>
> On Fri, 9 May 2025, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> >
> > With the goal of deprecating / removing VOLUNTARY preempt, live-patch
> > needs to stop relying on cond_resched() to make forward progress.
> >
> > Instead, rely on schedule() with TASK_FREEZABLE set. Just like
> > live-patching, the freezer needs to be able to stop tasks in a safe /
> > known state.
> >
> > Compile tested only.
>
> livepatch selftests pass and I also ran some more.
>
> > [bigeasy: use likely() in __klp_sched_try_switch() and update comments]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]>
>
> Acked-by: Miroslav Benes <[email protected]>
>
> A nit below if there is an another version, otherwise Petr might fix it
> when merging.
Petr or Peter?
That is, who are we expecting to merge this :-)
Anyway, I've zapped the line in my copy.
> > @@ -365,27 +356,20 @@ static bool klp_try_switch_task(struct task_struct
> > *task)
> >
> > void __klp_sched_try_switch(void)
> > {
> > + /*
> > + * This function is called from __schedule() while a context switch is
> > + * about to happen. Preemption is already disabled and klp_mutex
> > + * can't be acquired.
> > + * Disabled preemption is used to prevent racing with other callers of
> > + * klp_try_switch_task(). Thanks to task_call_func() they won't be
> > + * able to switch to this task while it's running.
> > + */
> > + lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
> > +
> > + /* Make sure current didn't get patched */
> > if (likely(!klp_patch_pending(current)))
> > return;
>
> This last comment is not precise. If !klp_patch_pending(), there is
> nothing to do. Fast way out. So if it was up to me, I would remove the
> line all together.
>
> Miroslav
