On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 14:53 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 17:35 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > You might need another one of these in invoke_softirq() > > > > Excellent. > > I gave it a quick try (without your suggestion), and host seems to > survive a stress test. > > Of course we do have to fix these problems : > > [ 147.781629] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 48 > [ 147.785546] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 48 > [ 147.788344] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 48 > [ 147.788992] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 48 > [ 147.790943] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 48 > [ 147.791232] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 24a > [ 147.791258] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 48 > [ 147.791366] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 48 > [ 147.792118] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 48 > [ 147.793428] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 48
Well, with your suggestion, these warnings disappear ;)
