On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 at 17:27, Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 30/04/2024 15:44, Joel Colledge wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 at 16:28, Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Is this an issue for delay > 0 too somehow? > > > > I believe it is. If there is simply no IO to the delay device, then > > nothing will wake the new thread and the same issue will occur. > > Yes, but might be better to just set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > instead of the wakeup. I'm afraid I don't follow what you mean. set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) would need to be called from the worker, but the worker isn't running yet, so it can't do that. When preparing this patch, I checked how common kthread_create() followed by wake_up_process() is. It is fairly common according to this very approximate metric: $ grep -r -I -A10 kthread_create | grep -c wake_up_process 49 I just looked through those matches in more detail and noticed that there is a kthread_run() macro which does exactly what we need. I will change my suggestion to use that instead. I will wait for more comments before sending a new version of the patch. Best regards, Joel
