On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:46:13PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 08:49:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > I.e. it's in essence the strong stop-all atomic patching > > model of 'kpatch', combined with the reliable avoidance of > > kernel stacks that 'kgraft' uses. > > > That should be the starting point, because it's the most > > reliable method. > > In the consistency models discussion, this was marked the > "LEAVE_KERNEL+SWITCH_KERNEL" model. It's indeed the strongest model of > all, but also comes at the highest cost in terms of impact on running > tasks. It's so high (the interruption may be seconds or more) that it > was deemed not worth implementing.
Yeah, this is way too disruptive to the user. Even the comparatively tiny latency caused by kpatch's use of stop_machine() was considered unacceptable by some. Plus a lot of processes would see EINTR, causing more havoc. -- Josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
