* Re: [mainline][BUG] Observed Workqueue lockups on offline CPUs.
2026-04-27 10:02 [mainline][BUG] Observed Workqueue lockups on offline CPUs Samir M
@ 2026-04-27 11:30 ` Samir M
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Samir M @ 2026-04-27 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul E . McKenney
Cc: Boqun Feng, LKML, Tejun Heo, RCU, linuxppc-dev, Shrikanth Hegde
On 27/04/26 3:32 pm, Samir M wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I've been testing the latest upstream kernel on a PowerPC system and
> encountered workqueue lockup issues that I've bisected to commit
> 61bbcfb50514 ("srcu: Push srcu_node allocation to GP when
> non-preemptible").
> After booting, I'm seeing workqueue lockup warnings for CPUs 81-96,
> which are offline on my system. The workqueues remain stuck for over
> 237 seconds:
>
> [ 243.309302][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=81 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309311][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=82 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309318][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=83 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309326][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=84 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309333][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=85 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309341][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=86 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309348][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=87 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309355][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=88 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309363][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=89 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309370][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=90 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309377][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=91 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309384][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=92 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309392][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=93 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309399][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=94 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309406][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=95 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
> [ 243.309413][ C0] BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=96 node=0
> flags=0x4 nice=0 stuck for 237s!
>
> Git bisect identified this as the first bad commit:
>
> commit 61bbcfb50514a8a94e035a7349697a3790ab4783
> Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Date: Fri Mar 20 20:29:20 2026 -0700
>
> srcu: Push srcu_node allocation to GP when non-preemptible
>
> When the srcutree.convert_to_big and srcutree.big_cpu_lim kernel boot
> parameters specify initialization-time allocation of the srcu_node
> tree for statically allocated srcu_struct structures (for example, in
> DEFINE_SRCU() at build time instead of init_srcu_struct() at
> runtime),
> init_srcu_struct_nodes() will attempt to dynamically allocate this
> tree
> at the first run-time update-side use of this srcu_struct structure,
> but while holding a raw spinlock. Because the memory allocator can
> acquire non-raw spinlocks, this can result in lockdep splats.
>
> This commit therefore uses the same SRCU_SIZE_ALLOC trick that is
> used
> when the first run-time update-side use of this srcu_struct structure
> happens before srcu_init() is called. The actual allocation then
> takes
> place from workqueue context at the ends of upcoming SRCU grace
> periods.
>
> [boqun: Adjust the sha1 of the Fixes tag]
>
> Fixes: 175b45ed343a ("srcu: Use raw spinlocks so call_srcu() can
> be used under preempt_disable()")
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>
>
> kernel/rcu/srcutree.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Reverting this commit resolves the issue.
>
> The problem appears to be that the workqueue is attempting to execute
> on offline CPUs. The commit moves SRCU node allocation to workqueue
> context to avoid lockdep issues with memory allocation under raw
> spinlocks, which makes sense. However, it seems the workqueue
> scheduling doesn't properly account for CPU online/offline state in
> this code path.
>
> My test environment:
> - Architecture: PowerPC
> - Kernel version: Latest upstream (7.1-rc1)
> - CPUs 81-96 are offline at boot time
>
> I suspect the issue might be related to:
> 1. Workqueue not checking CPU online status before scheduling SRCU
> allocation work
> 2. Missing CPU hotplug awareness in the new workqueue-based allocation
> path
> 3. Possible race condition with CPU hotplug events
>
> Would it make sense to use queue_work_on() with explicit online CPU
> selection, or add CPU hotplug handlers for this workqueue? I'm not
> deeply familiar with the workqueue internals, so I might be missing
> something.
> Please let me know if you need any additional details or if you'd like
> me to test any patches.
>
> If you happen to fix the above issue, then please add below tag.
> Reported-by: Samir M <samir@linux.ibm.com>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Samir
Hi Paul,
I worked on fixing the issue and introduced the changes below. With
these updates, I no longer observe any workqueue lockup messages for
offline CPUs.
Could you please review the changes and share your feedback?
The commit 61bbcfb50514 ("srcu: Push srcu_node allocation to GP when
non-preemptible") introduced workqueue lockups on systems with offline
CPUs. The issue occurs because srcu_queue_delayed_work_on() calls
queue_work_on() with sdp->cpu, which may be offline, causing the
workqueue to spin indefinitely on that CPU.
This patch fixes the issue by checking if the target CPU is online
before queuing work on it. If the CPU is offline, we fall back to
using queue_work() which will schedule the work on any available
online CPU.
Fixes: 61bbcfb50514 ("srcu: Push srcu_node allocation to GP when
non-preemptible")
Signed-off-by: Samir <samir@linux.ibm.com>
---
kernel/rcu/srcutree.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
index 0d01cd8c4b4a..55a90dd4a030 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
@@ -869,10 +869,15 @@ static void srcu_delay_timer(struct timer_list *t)
static void srcu_queue_delayed_work_on(struct srcu_data *sdp,
unsigned long delay)
{
- if (!delay) {
+ if (!delay && cpu_online(sdp->cpu)) {
queue_work_on(sdp->cpu, rcu_gp_wq, &sdp->work);
return;
+ } else if (!delay) {
+ /* CPU is offline, queue on any available CPU */
+ queue_work(rcu_gp_wq, &sdp->work);
+ return;
+ }
timer_reduce(&sdp->delay_work, jiffies + delay);
}
--
Thanks,
Samir
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread