Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2023 17:01:31 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To:     Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        "kunit-dev@googlegroups.com" <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        "lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org" <lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: next: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1200 at mm/page_alloc.c:4744
 __alloc_pages+0x2e8/0x3a0
Message-ID: <1059342c-f45a-4065-b088-f7a61833096e@kili.mountain>
References: <CA+G9fYvVcMLqif7f3yayN_WZduZrf_86xc2ruVDDR7yphLC=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6c7a89ba-1253-41e0-82d0-74a67a2e414e@kili.mountain>
 <DC7CFF65-F4A2-4481-AA5C-0FA986BE48B7@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DC7CFF65-F4A2-4481-AA5C-0FA986BE48B7@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:56:30PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> 
> 
> > On May 12, 2023, at 6:32 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> wrote:
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure Chuck Lever did this intentionally, but he's not on the
> > CC list.  Let's add him.
> > 
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> > 
> > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 06:15:04PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> >> Following kernel warning has been noticed on qemu-arm64 while running kunit
> >> tests while booting Linux 6.4.0-rc1-next-20230512 and It was started from
> >> 6.3.0-rc7-next-20230420.
> >> 
> >> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
> >> 
> >> This is always reproducible on qemu-arm64, qemu-arm, qemu-x86 and qemu-i386.
> >> Is this expected warning as a part of kunit tests ?
> 
> Dan's correct, this Kunit test is supposed to check the
> behavior of the API when a too-large privsize is specified.
> 
> I'm not sure how to make this work without the superfluous
> warning. Would adding GFP_NOWARN to the allocation help?

That would silence the splat, yes.

regards,
dan carpenter