Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752327AbdLUKTe (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Dec 2017 05:19:34 -0500 Received: from mail-pl0-f52.google.com ([209.85.160.52]:46992 "EHLO mail-pl0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751368AbdLUKT2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Dec 2017 05:19:28 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotw5VimpXrqQfMUM+WsmPcnxH8BLUPkZn4GovgQJGwsOr/sAwXPStgOCtIdAeKwpa3B/e7vjV2woPRCuYBJz4c= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201712201955.BHB30282.tMSFVFFJLQHOOO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> References: <94eb2c03c9bc75aff2055f70734c@google.com> <001a113f711a528a3f0560b08e76@google.com> <201712192327.FIJ64026.tMQFOOVFFLHOSJ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <201712201955.BHB30282.tMSFVFFJLQHOOO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> From: Dmitry Vyukov Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:19:06 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: BUG: workqueue lockup (2) To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: syzbot , syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Kate Stewart , LKML , Linux-MM , Philippe Ombredanne , Thomas Gleixner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1473 Lines: 35 On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Tetsuo Handa >> 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.