From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66947C28CF6 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 03:14:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A3C20883 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 03:14:33 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 08A3C20883 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726028AbeG0EeQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:34:16 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:43088 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725819AbeG0EeP (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:34:15 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w6R33Zhj165547 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 23:14:30 -0400 Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com (e17.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.207]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2kfsrd385d-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 23:14:30 -0400 Received: from localhost by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 23:14:29 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.28) by e17.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.204) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 26 Jul 2018 23:14:27 -0400 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w6R3EQGh8323400 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 27 Jul 2018 03:14:26 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16001B2064; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 23:14:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9EDFB205F; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 23:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.85.139.164]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 23:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0BF6A16CA220; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:14:26 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Joel Fernandes Cc: kernel test robot , LKML , Stephen Rothwell , lkp@01.org Subject: Re: [LKP] [rcutorture] 3b745c8969: WARNING:at_mm/slab_common.c:#kmalloc_slab Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20180726085015.GA29979@shao2-debian> <20180726115325.GE24813@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180726233436.GA211260@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180726233436.GA211260@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18072703-0040-0000-0000-000004548025 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009435; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000266; SDB=6.01066676; UDB=6.00548045; IPR=6.00844537; MB=3.00022343; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-07-27 03:14:29 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18072703-0041-0000-0000-0000085AB727 Message-Id: <20180727031426.GU24813@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-07-26_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1807270028 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:34:36PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:53:25AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:50:15PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > > > > > > FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-5): > > > > > > commit: 3b745c8969c752601cb68c82a06735363563ab42 ("rcutorture: Make boost test more robust") > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master > > > > > > in testcase: boot > > > > > > on test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -smp 2 -m 512M > > > > > > caused below changes (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace): > > > > Is this fixed by 4babd855fd61 ("rcutorture: Add support to detect > > if boost kthread prio is too low")? That could address the > > rcu_torture_stats_print() failures, depending on exactly what they were. > > (Yes, I should have reversed these two commits, but they are in -tip > > now, so that ship has sailed.) > > > > Joel, any other thoughts? > > I ran the next tree myself and was not able to reproduce the issue with the > same configuration. Although I don't have rcupdate.rcu_cpu_stall_timeout=100 > passed in like they do (which I can also try if you think its of significance > here). > > It seems from their logs that most Locking API self tests are failing. the > Lock API test suite is run before rcutorture where rcutorture hasn't even > started. > > Also as per their rcutorture output, it appears the 'rtf' value is also > non-zero (rcu_torture_free test). Which makes sense if the earlier memory > allocation warnings are somehow related. It could potentially be an OOM issue. Something to keep an eye out for, then. Thanx, Paul