On Mon 2017-11-20 16:57:19, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
> > If a task sleeps in a set of patched functions uninterruptedly, it could
> > block the whole transition indefinitely. Thus it may be useful to clear
> > its TIF_PATCH_PENDING to allow the process
On Mon 2017-11-20 16:57:19, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
> > If a task sleeps in a set of patched functions uninterruptedly, it could
> > block the whole transition indefinitely. Thus it may be useful to clear
> > its TIF_PATCH_PENDING to allow the process
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Just disable rmmod in case of forced removal.
Yeah, well, that's basically what the patch does :)
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Just disable rmmod in case of forced removal.
Yeah, well, that's basically what the patch does :)
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Hi!
> > We can also try to improve later. We could remember all forced tasks
> > and reenable rmmod once those tasks are really migrated ("shadow
> > migration").
>
> NACK :-) Forcing should hopefully be a rare event, not worth the
> trouble to try to keep track of that IMO.
Just disable
Hi!
> > We can also try to improve later. We could remember all forced tasks
> > and reenable rmmod once those tasks are really migrated ("shadow
> > migration").
>
> NACK :-) Forcing should hopefully be a rare event, not worth the
> trouble to try to keep track of that IMO.
Just disable
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:11:14AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> > I agree; the only thing I think really has to be done is putting a comment
> > there, explaining why forcing implies infinite module reference (and also
> > perhaps making it therefore
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:11:14AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> > I agree; the only thing I think really has to be done is putting a comment
> > there, explaining why forcing implies infinite module reference (and also
> > perhaps making it therefore
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> I agree; the only thing I think really has to be done is putting a comment
> there, explaining why forcing implies infinite module reference (and also
> perhaps making it therefore even more obvious from documentation, that
> this really is a
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> I agree; the only thing I think really has to be done is putting a comment
> there, explaining why forcing implies infinite module reference (and also
> perhaps making it therefore even more obvious from documentation, that
> this really is a
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> While working on "immediate" removal, I realized we had the similar
> problem here with modules removal. There is no way out of the rabbit hole.
>
> If a patch is forced, we obviously cannot say there is no task sleeping in
> the old code. This
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> While working on "immediate" removal, I realized we had the similar
> problem here with modules removal. There is no way out of the rabbit hole.
>
> If a patch is forced, we obviously cannot say there is no task sleeping in
> the old code. This
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 04:57:19PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
> > If a task sleeps in a set of patched functions uninterruptedly, it could
> > block the whole transition indefinitely. Thus it may be useful to clear
> > its TIF_PATCH_PENDING to
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 04:57:19PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
> > If a task sleeps in a set of patched functions uninterruptedly, it could
> > block the whole transition indefinitely. Thus it may be useful to clear
> > its TIF_PATCH_PENDING to
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> If a task sleeps in a set of patched functions uninterruptedly, it could
> block the whole transition indefinitely. Thus it may be useful to clear
> its TIF_PATCH_PENDING to allow the process to finish.
>
> Admin can do that now by writing to force
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> If a task sleeps in a set of patched functions uninterruptedly, it could
> block the whole transition indefinitely. Thus it may be useful to clear
> its TIF_PATCH_PENDING to allow the process to finish.
>
> Admin can do that now by writing to force
16 matches
Mail list logo
