Re: BUG: workqueue lockup (2)

[Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Tetsuo Handa
> <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>> syzbot wrote:
>>>
>>> syzkaller has found reproducer for the following crash on
>>> f3b5ad89de16f5d42e8ad36fbdf85f705c1ae051
>>
>> "BUG: workqueue lockup" is not a crash.
>
> Hi Tetsuo,
>
> What is the proper name for all of these collectively?
>
>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/master
>>> compiler: gcc (GCC) 7.1.1 20170620
>>> .config is attached
>>> Raw console output is attached.
>>> C reproducer is attached
>>> syzkaller reproducer is attached. See https://goo.gl/kgGztJ
>>> for information about syzkaller reproducers
>>>
>>>
>>> BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=1 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=0 stuck for 37s!
>>> BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=1 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=-20 stuck for 32s!
>>> Showing busy workqueues and worker pools:
>>> workqueue events: flags=0x0
>>>    pwq 2: cpus=1 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=0 active=1/256
>>>      pending: cache_reap
>>> workqueue events_power_efficient: flags=0x80
>>>    pwq 2: cpus=1 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=0 active=2/256
>>>      pending: neigh_periodic_work, do_cache_clean
>>> workqueue mm_percpu_wq: flags=0x8
>>>    pwq 2: cpus=1 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=0 active=1/256
>>>      pending: vmstat_update
>>> workqueue kblockd: flags=0x18
>>>    pwq 3: cpus=1 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=-20 active=1/256
>>>      pending: blk_timeout_work
>>
>> You gave up too early. There is no hint for understanding what was going on.
>> While we can observe "BUG: workqueue lockup" under memory pressure, there is
>> no hint like SysRq-t and SysRq-m. Thus, I can't tell something is wrong.
>
> Do you know how to send them programmatically? I tried to find a way
> several times, but failed. Articles that I've found talk about
> pressing some keys that don't translate directly to us-ascii.

On second though, some oopses automatically dump locks/tasks. Should
we do the same for this oops?

> But you can also run the reproducer. No report can possible provide
> all possible useful information, sometimes debugging boils down to
> manually adding printfs. That's why syzbot aims at providing a
> reproducer as the ultimate source of details. Also since a developer
> needs to test a proposed fix, it's easier to start with the reproducer
> right away.
>
>
>> At least you need to confirm that lockup lasts for a few minutes. Otherwise,
>
> Is it possible to increase the timeout? How? We could bump it up to 2 minutes.
>
>
>> this might be just overstressing. (According to repro.c , 12 threads are
>> created and soon SEGV follows? According to above message, only 2 CPUs?
>> Triggering SEGV suggests memory was low due to saving coredump?)