[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC v2] xSplice design
On 12/06/15 17:09, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >>> The _GET_STATUS does not enforce this and can take longer giving us >>> more breathing room - and also unbounded time - which means if >>> we were to try to cancel it (say it had run for an hour and still >>> could not patch it)- we have to add some hairy code to >>> deal with cancelling asynchronous code. >>> >>> Your way is simpler - but I would advocate expanding the -EAGAIN to _all_ >>> the xSplice hypercalls. Thoughts? >> In my experience, you only need the EAGAIN for hypercalls that use the >> quiet state. Depending on the design, that would be the operations that >> do hotpatch activation and deactivation (i.e., the actual splicing). > The uploading of the patch could be slow - as in the checking to be done > and on an big patch (2MB or more?) it would be good to try again. If a patch is greater than a few kb, it is probably not something sensible to be patching. However, an upload_patch/apply_patch split in the hypercall ABI might be a sensible idea. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |