On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 07:40 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa > <han...@stressinduktion.org> wrote: > > > This looks racy to me as the ksoftirqd could be in the progress to stop > > and we would miss another softirq invocation. > > Looking at smpboot_thread_fn(), it looks fine : > > if (!ht->thread_should_run(td->cpu)) { > preempt_enable_no_resched(); > schedule(); > } else { > __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); > preempt_enable(); > ht->thread_fn(td->cpu); > }
BTW, I wonder why we pass td->cpu as argument to ht->thread_fn(td->cpu) This always should be the current processor id. Or do we have an issue because we ignore it in : static int ksoftirqd_should_run(unsigned int cpu) { return local_softirq_pending(); }