On Mon, 2023-09-25 at 13:06 -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On 09/25/23 15:22, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-09-25 at 10:04 +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > kernel test robot noticed the following build errors: > > > > > > [auto build test ERROR on akpm-mm/mm-everything] > > > [also build test ERROR on linus/master v6.6-rc3 next-20230921] > > > [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a > > > note. > > > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as > > > documented > > > in > > > https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information] > > > > OK, so I have a fix for patch 3/3 that gets rid of the > > compile error, but the libhugetlbfs test cases show that > > patch 3/3 opens up a condition where resv_hugepages > > underflows. > > > > I have not figured out the cause of that yet, but > > patches 1 & 2 seem to survive all tests fine. > > In addition, I suspect patch 3 is going to cause a performance > regression. > It is taking me a little while to resurrect the test environment used > when > the hugetlb vma lock was introduced. My plan is to exercise the > series in > that environment. > I am planning to send a v3 of the series soon, once I have confirmed that the bugs in patch 3 have all been fixed. I have no strong opinion on whether or not patch 3 gets merged at all. Patches 1 & 2 fix the actual bug that I am trying to fix, and I am perfectly fine if patch 3 ends up getting dropped in the end. It seemed worth trying to get that cleanup though ;) > I should be able to review patches 1 & 2 later (my) today. Thank you! -- All Rights Reversed.
