Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 12:17:45 -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: <20220509191745.yk2txsa4cv3ypf6k@treble>
References: <20220507174628.2086373-1-song@kernel.org>
 <20220509115227.6075105e@imladris.surriel.com>
 <20220509180004.zmvhz65xlncwqrrc@treble>
 <68f91fb233d5bf82e29cc5c6960a62863b297db3.camel@surriel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <68f91fb233d5bf82e29cc5c6960a62863b297db3.camel@surriel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 03:10:16PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-05-09 at 11:00 -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 11:52:27AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > Does this look like an approach that could work?
> > > 
> > > @@ -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?
> > 
> That's the kind of feedback I was hoping for ;)
> 
> I looked around the code a little bit, and it seems
> that only the idle tasks can transition to another KLP
> while they are running?

Yes.

> That makes me wonder how the kworker thread that runs
> the klp switching code transitions itself...

See klp_check_and_switch_task(), in addition to checking blocked tasks,
it also checks the current task.

> Should kernel threads that can use a lot of CPU have
> something in their outer loop to transition KLPs,
> just like the idle task does?

Maybe - I suppose this is the first time we've had an issue with
CPU-bound kthreads.  I didn't know that was a thing ;-)

-- 
Josh