Linux-Next discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: test failure after merge of the mm-nonmm-unstable tree
Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 12:15:38 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87v7cko7fp.fsf@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fabba1ab-ceff-429c-af55-92844b179890@sirena.org.uk>


Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> writes:

> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 01:00:07PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> After merging the mm-nonmm-unstable tree, today's linux-next testing
>> (arm64 kunit) failed like this:
>
>> [11:39:24] Failures: smp-cond-load-relaxed-timeout.smp_cond_relaxed_timeout_succeeds
>
>> Note that we are running on an arm64 host with access to KVM so the
>> above should be running with KVM rather than being emulated.
>
>> Caused by commit
>
>>    0403c34571d1d (kunit: add tests for smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout())
>
>> in that it's adding the new test which fails, I didn't investigate the
>> quality of the test.  I do note that there's some related functional
>> work also from Ankur that's also added by the mm-nonmm-unstable tree but
>> didn't investigate that either.
>
>> I have used the version from next-20260506 instead, the code was in
>> next-20260508 but I belive Thierry was emulating.
>
> Actually these patches were introduced in next-20260427 so I'll need to
> go back to next-20260424 instead, sorry (got confused by the tree
> rebasing).  It looks like something in the more recent versions made the
> issue more promienent.

Hi Mark

Thanks for the report. The failing test case is using a kthread to
toggle a bit which the test depends on.

The first test condition succeeds:

  KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (bool)(result & TEST_FLAG_VAL), succeeds)

so the bit did get toggled. The second condition (runtime <= timeout_ns)
failed:

  KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, runtime <= timeout_ns, succeeds)

Possibly because the we got scheduled out while running the test. Not
sure why the test started failing now. I'm guessing the VM running the
test isn't under CPU stress and the like.

If that can happen then I should relax the second condition.

--
ankur

  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-18 19:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-18 12:00 linux-next: test failure after merge of the mm-nonmm-unstable tree Mark Brown
2026-05-18 13:49 ` Mark Brown
2026-05-18 19:15   ` Ankur Arora [this message]
2026-05-19  6:02     ` Ankur Arora
2026-05-19  8:26       ` Mark Brown

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=87v7cko7fp.fsf@oracle.com \
    --to=ankur.a.arora@oracle.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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