Messages in this thread | | | From | Dmitry Vyukov <> | Date | Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:19:06 +0100 | Subject | Re: BUG: workqueue lockup (2) |
| |
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote: > Dmitry Vyukov 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? > > I think that things which lead to kernel panic when /proc/sys/kernel/panic_on_oops > was set to 1 are called an "oops" (or a "kerneloops"). > > Speak of "BUG: workqueue lockup", this is not an "oops". This message was > added by 82607adcf9cdf40f ("workqueue: implement lockup detector"), and > this message does not always indicate a fatal problem. This message can be > printed when the system is really out of CPU and memory. As far as I tested, > I think that workqueue was not able to run on specific CPU due to a soft > lockup bug.
There are also warnings which don't panic normally, unless panic_on_warn is set. There are also cases when we suddenly lost a machine and have no idea what happened with it. And also cases when we are kind-a connected, and nothing bad is printed on console, but it's still un-operable. The only collective name I can think of is bug. We could change it to bug. Otherwise since there are multiple names, I don't think it's worth spending more time on this.
| |