On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 08:30:14AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > It certainly is a hack/work-around, but unless there are a lot more that > should be using something like this, I don't think adding extra core > complexity in terms of a special task state (or per-task flag, at least > that would be easier) is really warranted. Basically any kernel thread doing on-demand work has the same problem. It just has an easier workaround hack, as the kernel threads can simply claim to do an interruptible sleep to not trigger the softlockup warnings.
