On 11.05.2016 08:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 03:51:37PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
>> index 17caf4b63342..22463217e3cf 100644
>> --- a/kernel/softirq.c
>> +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
>> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(irq_stat);
>> static struct softirq_action softirq_vec[NR_SOFTIRQS]
>> __cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>>
>> DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, ksoftirqd);
>> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, ksoftirqd_scheduled);
>>
>> const char * const softirq_to_name[NR_SOFTIRQS] = {
>> "HI", "TIMER", "NET_TX", "NET_RX", "BLOCK", "BLOCK_IOPOLL",
>> @@ -73,8 +74,10 @@ static void wakeup_softirqd(void)
>> /* Interrupts are disabled: no need to stop preemption */
>> struct task_struct *tsk = __this_cpu_read(ksoftirqd);
>>
>> - if (tsk && tsk->state != TASK_RUNNING)
>> + if (tsk && tsk->state != TASK_RUNNING) {
>> + __this_cpu_write(ksoftirqd_scheduled, true);
>> wake_up_process(tsk);
>
> Since we're already looking at tsk->state, and the wake_up_process()
> ensures the thing becomes TASK_RUNNING, you could add:
>
> static inline bool ksoftirqd_running(void)
> {
> return __this_cpu_read(ksoftirqd)->state == TASK_RUNNING;
> }
This looks racy to me as the ksoftirqd could be in the progress to stop
and we would miss another softirq invocation.
Thanks,
Hannes
