To:     David Vernet <void@manifault.com>, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
        pmladek@suse.com, jikos@kernel.org, mbenes@suse.cz
References: <20211229215646.830451-1-void@manifault.com>
From:   Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] livepatch: Avoid CPU hogging with cond_resched
Message-ID: <1f1b9b01-cfab-8a84-f35f-c21172e5d64d@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Jan 2022 09:13:08 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20211229215646.830451-1-void@manifault.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/29/21 4:56 PM, David Vernet wrote:
> For example, under certain workloads, enabling a KLP patch with
> many objects or functions may cause ksoftirqd to be starved, and thus for
> interrupts to be backlogged and delayed.

Just curious, approximately how many objects/functions does it take to
hit this condition?  While the livepatching kselftests are more about
API and kernel correctness, this sounds like an interesting test case
for some of the other (out of tree) test suites.

Thanks,
-- 
Joe