Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:14:26 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, 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)
Message-Id: <20180727031426.GU24813@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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