From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@atomlin.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, lance.yang@linux.dev,
mhiramat@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
joel.granados@kernel.org, neelx@suse.com, sean@ashe.io,
mproche@gmail.com, chjohnst@gmail.com, nick.lange@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 1/1] hung_task: Explicitly report I/O wait state in log output
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 16:14:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aYC_Yr6SQVTUkyV6@pathway> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260128204516.3473709-2-atomlin@atomlin.com>
On Wed 2026-01-28 15:45:16, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> Currently, the hung task reporting mechanism indiscriminately labels all
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE (D) tasks as "blocked", irrespective of whether they
> are awaiting I/O completion or kernel locking primitives. This ambiguity
> compels system administrators to manually inspect stack traces to discern
> whether the delay stems from an I/O wait (typically indicative of
> hardware or filesystem anomalies) or software contention. Such detailed
> analysis is not always immediately accessible to system administrators
> or support engineers.
>
> To address this, this patch utilises the existing in_iowait field within
> struct task_struct to augment the failure report. If the task is blocked
> due to I/O (e.g., via io_schedule_prepare()), the log message is updated
> to explicitly state "blocked in I/O wait".
>
> Examples:
> - Standard Block: "INFO: task bash:123 blocked for more than 120
> seconds".
>
> - I/O Block: "INFO: task dd:456 blocked in I/O wait for more than
> 120 seconds".
>
> Accessing in_iowait is safe in this context. The detector holds
> rcu_read_lock() within check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks(), ensuring the
> task structure remains valid in memory.
This part is true.
> Furthermore, as the task is
> confirmed to be in a persistent TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state, it cannot
> modify its own in_iowait flag, rendering the read operation stable and
> free from data races.
Strictly speaking, this is not true. IMHO, nothing prevents the task
from waking up in parallel. Just the chance is small.
I would say that the information will be valid in 99.99% of situations
because the message is printed only when the task has been stuck
in the state for a long time. A possible mistake should be
visible from the later printed backtrace.
> --- a/kernel/hung_task.c
> +++ b/kernel/hung_task.c
> @@ -250,8 +250,9 @@ static void hung_task_info(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long timeout,
> if (sysctl_hung_task_warnings || hung_task_call_panic) {
> if (sysctl_hung_task_warnings > 0)
> sysctl_hung_task_warnings--;
> - pr_err("INFO: task %s:%d blocked for more than %ld seconds.\n",
> - t->comm, t->pid, (jiffies - t->last_switch_time) / HZ);
> + pr_err("INFO: task %s:%d blocked %s for more than %ld seconds.\n",
s/blocked %s for/blocked%s for/
> + t->comm, t->pid, t->in_iowait ? "in I/O wait" : "",
and here: " in I/O wait".
Otherwise, it would print two spaces in the non-io case, like"
"INFO: task bash:123 blocked for more than 120 seconds"
> + (jiffies - t->last_switch_time) / HZ);
> pr_err(" %s %s %.*s\n",
> print_tainted(), init_utsname()->release,
> (int)strcspn(init_utsname()->version, " "),
Otherwise, it looks good.
Best Regards,
Petr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-02 15:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-28 20:45 [v2 PATCH 0/1] hung_task: Explicitly report I/O wait state in log output Aaron Tomlin
2026-01-28 20:45 ` [v2 PATCH 1/1] " Aaron Tomlin
2026-01-28 23:16 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2026-02-03 1:32 ` Aaron Tomlin
2026-02-02 15:14 ` Petr Mladek [this message]
2026-02-02 15:28 ` Lance Yang
2026-02-03 1:24 ` Aaron Tomlin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aYC_Yr6SQVTUkyV6@pathway \
--to=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=atomlin@atomlin.com \
--cc=chjohnst@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=joel.granados@kernel.org \
--cc=lance.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mproche@gmail.com \
--cc=neelx@suse.com \
--cc=nick.lange@gmail.com \
--cc=sean@ashe.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox