Date:   Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:56:08 -0800
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Seth Forshee <sforshee@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] livepatch,sched: Add livepatch task switching to
 cond_resched()
Message-ID: <20230228165608.kumgxziaietsjaz3@treble>
References: <cover.1677257135.git.jpoimboe@kernel.org>
 <4ae981466b7814ec221014fc2554b2f86f3fb70b.1677257135.git.jpoimboe@kernel.org>
 <Y/zSgw5LOpbp7e/A@alley>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y/zSgw5LOpbp7e/A@alley>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 04:55:47PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2023-02-24 08:50:00, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > There have been reports [1][2] of live patches failing to complete
> > within a reasonable amount of time due to CPU-bound kthreads.
> > 
> > Fix it by patching tasks in cond_resched().
> > 
> > There are four different flavors of cond_resched(), depending on the
> > kernel configuration.  Hook into all of them.
> > 
> > A more elegant solution might be to use a preempt notifier.  However,
> > non-ORC unwinders can't unwind a preempted task reliably.
> > 
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220507174628.2086373-1-song@kernel.org/
> > [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/20230120-vhost-klp-switching-v1-0-7c2b65519c43@kernel.org
> > 
> > Tested-by: Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) <sforshee@kernel.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
> 
> Just for record, I have double checked the changes against v2
> and everything looks good to me.

Whoops, so I found another little surprise:

static int klp_check_stack(struct task_struct *task, const char **oldname)
{
        static unsigned long entries[MAX_STACK_ENTRIES];
	^^^^^^

That entries array is shared between the klp_mutex owner and all
cond_resched() callers.

MAX_STACK_ENTRIES is 100, which seems excessive.  If we halved that, the
array would be "only" 400 bytes, which is *almost* reasonable to
allocate on the stack?

Alternatively we could have a percpu entries array... :-/

-- 
Josh