Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 11:00:04 -0700
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Cc:     Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        jpoimboe@redhat.com, joe.lawrence@redhat.com, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched,livepatch: call stop_one_cpu in
 klp_check_and_switch_task
Message-ID: <20220509180004.zmvhz65xlncwqrrc@treble>
References: <20220507174628.2086373-1-song@kernel.org>
 <20220509115227.6075105e@imladris.surriel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220509115227.6075105e@imladris.surriel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 11:52:27AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Does this look like an approach that could work?
> 
> ---8<---
> sched,livepatch: call stop_one_cpu in klp_check_and_switch_task
> 
> If a running task fails to transition to the new kernel live patch after the
> first attempt, use the stopper thread to preempt it during subsequent attempts
> at switching to the new kernel live patch.
> 
> <INSERT EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS HERE>

It would be helpful to add more info about the original problem being
solved, and how this is supposed to fix it.

> +static int kpatch_dummy_fn(void *dummy)

s/kpatch/klp/

> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Try to safely switch a task to the target patch state.  If it's currently
>   * running, or it's sleeping on a to-be-patched or to-be-unpatched function, or
> @@ -315,6 +321,9 @@ static bool klp_try_switch_task(struct task_struct *task)
>  	case -EBUSY:	/* klp_check_and_switch_task() */
>  		pr_debug("%s: %s:%d is running\n",
>  			 __func__, task->comm, task->pid);
> +		/* Preempt the task from the second KLP switch attempt. */
> +		if (klp_signals_cnt)
> +			stop_one_cpu(task_cpu(task), kpatch_dummy_fn, NULL);

I must be missing something, how is briefly preempting a kthread
supposed to actually transition it?  Won't it likely go back to running
on the CPU before the next periodic klp_transition_work_fn() check?

-- 
Josh