Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 10 May 2022 11:42:13 -0700
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@fb.com>
Cc:     "song@kernel.org" <song@kernel.org>,
        "joe.lawrence@redhat.com" <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        "pmladek@suse.com" <pmladek@suse.com>,
        "live-patching@vger.kernel.org" <live-patching@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "jpoimboe@redhat.com" <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched,livepatch: call klp_try_switch_task in __cond_resched
Message-ID: <20220510184213.l3gjweeleyg7obca@treble>
References: <20220507174628.2086373-1-song@kernel.org>
 <YnkuFrm1YR46OFx/@alley>
 <9C7DF147-5112-42E7-9F7C-7159EFDFB766@fb.com>
 <YnoawYtoCSvrK7lb@alley>
 <3a9bfb4a52b715bd8739d8834409c9549ec7f22f.camel@fb.com>
 <YnqIcw+dYsWz/w7g@alley>
 <6bf85ff908377508a5f5bcc7c4e75d598b96f388.camel@fb.com>
 <20220510165244.ikfh64ertnvodxb4@treble>
 <1bd15361edfd4db9fc9271d35e7bbe5edad1b87a.camel@fb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1bd15361edfd4db9fc9271d35e7bbe5edad1b87a.camel@fb.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 06:07:00PM +0000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 09:52 -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 04:07:42PM +0000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > 
> > > Now I wonder if we could just hook up a preempt notifier
> > > for kernel live patches. All the distro kernels already
> > > need the preempt notifier for KVM, anyway...
> > > 
> > 
> > I wouldn't be opposed to that, but how does it solve this problem? 
> > If
> > as Peter said cond_resched() can be a NOP, then preemption would have
> > to
> > be from an interrupt, in which case frame pointers aren't reliable.
> > 
> The systems where we are seeing problems do not, as far
> as I know, throw softlockup errors, so the kworker
> threads that fail to transition to the new KLP version
> are sleeping and getting scheduled out at times.

Are they sleeping due to an explicit call to cond_resched()?

> A KLP transition preempt notifier would help those
> kernel threads transition to the new KLP version at
> any time they reschedule.

... unless cond_resched() is a no-op due to CONFIG_PREEMPT?

> How much it will help is hard to predict, but I should
> be able to get results from a fairly large sample size
> of systems within a few weeks :)

As Peter said, keep in mind that we will need to fix other cases beyond
Facebook, i.e., CONFIG_PREEMPT combined with non-x86 arches which don't
have ORC so they can't reliably unwind from an IRQ.

-- 
Josh