Yes, interrupts are a signal/symptom and not a cause, they are an indication that the hardware is demanding the cpu’s time. Just like the higher load average is an indication of an issue and not a cause. The cpu’s available time is finite, which makes interrupts finite.
In order to handle an interrupt you need to execute some 100-1000 instructions (save the context, do I/O, signal end of interrupt handling, restore the context). That gives you some 10**6 - 10**7 interrupts per second max.
And USB bus ia simply not fast enough to generate that rate of interrupts.
As I said it’s likely that the kernel’s USB driver is waiting on a timeout and locking up part of the system.
You’re missing my point, it isn’t about the interrupts themselves but about the hardware demanding attention from the cpu. Either by making it take action or by making it wait (through interrupts). When the cpu needs to deal with the misbehaving hardware it will make other processes wait.
These discussions feel very boring and unfruitful to me, so i’m out.
As i mentioned to barry it isn’t about the interrupt rate, it can be a low rate but if the interrupts aren’t answered or closed properly then it will still increase the latency slowly. Over time this will increase the load since other processes have to wait longer than necessary. This is all due to the interrupt handling. The fact that the usb stick is dead doesn’t matter if the OS wouldn’t dedicate time to it, which it only does if it received an interrupt request to interact with the stick.