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

As long as ksoftirqd is running, that should not be
an actual problem, just a false positive.

-- 
All Rights Reversed.