Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "runtime_patch".
2020 Apr 08
0
[RFC PATCH 09/26] x86/paravirt: Add runtime_patch()
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 10:03:06PM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
> +/*
> + * preempt_enable_no_resched() so we don't add any preemption points until
> + * after the caller has returned.
> + */
> +#define preempt_enable_runtime_patch() preempt_enable_no_resched()
> +#define preempt_disable_runtime_patch() preempt_disable()
NAK, this is probably a stright preemption bug, also, afaict, there
aren't actually any users of this in the patch-set.
2020 Apr 08
0
[RFC PATCH 00/26] Runtime paravirt patching
...p*, smp_alt_module
> "x86/alternatives: Remove stale symbols
> "x86/paravirt: Persist .parainstructions.runtime"
>
> Patches 8-10, develop the inerfaces to safely switch pv-ops:
> "x86/paravirt: Stash native pv-ops"
> "x86/paravirt: Add runtime_patch()"
> "x86/paravirt: Add primitives to stage pv-ops"
>
> Patch 20 enables switching of pv_lock_ops:
> "x86/paravirt: Enable pv-spinlocks in runtime_patch()"
>
> 2. Non-emulated text poking (patches 11-19)
>
> Patches 11-13 are mostly re...
2020 Apr 08
2
[RFC PATCH 00/26] Runtime paravirt patching
...s
> we cannot trivially use IPIs for flushing.
Heck, some NMI handlers use locks..
> Handling these, necessitates that target pv-ops not be preemptible.
I don't think that is a correct inferrence.
> Once that is a given (for safety these need to be explicitly whitelisted
> in runtime_patch()), use a state-machine with the primary CPU doing the
> patching and secondary CPUs in a sync_core() loop.
>
> In case we hit an INT3/BP (in NMI or thread-context) we makes forward
> progress by continuing the patching instead of emulating.
>
> One remaining issue is inter-dep...
2020 Apr 08
2
[RFC PATCH 00/26] Runtime paravirt patching
...s
> we cannot trivially use IPIs for flushing.
Heck, some NMI handlers use locks..
> Handling these, necessitates that target pv-ops not be preemptible.
I don't think that is a correct inferrence.
> Once that is a given (for safety these need to be explicitly whitelisted
> in runtime_patch()), use a state-machine with the primary CPU doing the
> patching and secondary CPUs in a sync_core() loop.
>
> In case we hit an INT3/BP (in NMI or thread-context) we makes forward
> progress by continuing the patching instead of emulating.
>
> One remaining issue is inter-dep...