On weakly ordered architectures (e.g., arm64), the lockless check in
wq_watchdog_timer_fn() can observe a reordering between the worklist
insertion and the last_progress_ts update. Specifically, the watchdog
can see a non-empty worklist (from a list_add) while reading a stale
last_progress_ts value, causing a false positive stall report.
This was confirmed by reading pool->last_progress_ts again after holding
pool->lock in wq_watchdog_timer_fn():
workqueue watchdog: pool 7 false positive detected!
lockless_ts=
4784580465 locked_ts=
4785033728
diff=453263ms worklist_empty=0
To avoid slowing down the hot path (queue_work, etc.), recheck
last_progress_ts with pool->lock held. This will eliminate the false
positive with minimal overhead.
Remove two extra empty lines in wq_watchdog_timer_fn() as we are on it.
Fixes:
82607adcf9cd ("workqueue: implement lockup detector")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.5+
Assisted-by: claude-code:claude-opus-4-6
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
else
ts = touched;
- /* did we stall? */
+ /*
+ * Did we stall?
+ *
+ * Do a lockless check first. On weakly ordered
+ * architectures, the lockless check can observe a
+ * reordering between worklist insert_work() and
+ * last_progress_ts update from __queue_work(). Since
+ * __queue_work() is a much hotter path than the timer
+ * function, we handle false positive here by reading
+ * last_progress_ts again with pool->lock held.
+ */
if (time_after(now, ts + thresh)) {
+ scoped_guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave, &pool->lock) {
+ pool_ts = pool->last_progress_ts;
+ if (time_after(pool_ts, touched))
+ ts = pool_ts;
+ else
+ ts = touched;
+ }
+ if (!time_after(now, ts + thresh))
+ continue;
+
lockup_detected = true;
stall_time = jiffies_to_msecs(now - pool_ts) / 1000;
max_stall_time = max(max_stall_time, stall_time);
pr_cont_pool_info(pool);
pr_cont(" stuck for %us!\n", stall_time);
}
-
-
}
if (lockup_detected)