On 4/18/24 8:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. A kernel thread can just use TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, as it doesn't take signals anyway. But yeah, I guess you could view that as a work-around as well. Outside of that, mostly only a block problem, where our sleep is always uninterruptible. Unless there are similar hacks elsewhere in the kernel that I'm not aware of? -- Jens Axboe
