On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 6:25 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 9/21/24 23:08, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 9/21/24 13:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> +CC kunit folks
> >>
> >> On 9/20/24 15:35, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 12:31:20PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>>> Add a test that will create cache, allocate one object, kfree_rcu() it
> >>>> and attempt to destroy it. As long as the usage of kvfree_rcu_barrier()
> >>>> in kmem_cache_destroy() works correctly, there should be no warnings in
> >>>> dmesg and the test should pass.
> >>>>
> >>>> Additionally add a test_leak_destroy() test that leaks an object on
> >>>> purpose and verifies that kmem_cache_destroy() catches it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> This test case, when run, triggers a warning traceback.
> >>>
> >>> kmem_cache_destroy TestSlub_kfree_rcu: Slab cache still has objects when called from test_leak_destroy+0x70/0x11c
> >>> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 715 at mm/slab_common.c:511 kmem_cache_destroy+0x1dc/0x1e4
> >>
> >> Yes that should be suppressed like the other slub_kunit tests do. I have
> >> assumed it's not that urgent because for example the KASAN kunit tests all
> >> produce tons of warnings and thus assumed it's in some way acceptable for
> >> kunit tests to do.
> >>
> >
> > I have all tests which generate warning backtraces disabled. Trying to identify
> > which warnings are noise and which warnings are on purpose doesn't scale,
> > so it is all or nothing for me. I tried earlier to introduce a patch series
> > which would enable selective backtrace suppression, but that died the death
> > of architecture maintainers not caring and people demanding it to be perfect
> > (meaning it only addressed WARNING: backtraces and not BUG: backtraces,
> > and apparently that wasn't good enough).
>
> Ah, didn't know, too bad.
>
> > If the backtrace is intentional (and I think you are saying that it is),
> > I'll simply disable the test. That may be a bit counter-productive, but
> > there is really no alternative for me.
>
> It's intentional in the sense that the test intentionally triggers a
> condition that normally produces a warning. Many if the slub kunit test do
> that, but are able to suppress printing the warning when it happens in the
> kunit context. I forgot to do that for the new test initially as the warning
> there happens from a different path that those that already have the kunit
> suppression, but we'll implement that suppression there too ASAP.
We might also need to address the concern of the commit
7302e91f39a ("mm/slab_common: use WARN() if cache still has objects on
destroy"),
the concern that some users prefer WARN() over pr_err() to catch
errors on testing systems
which relies on WARN() format, and to respect panic_on_warn.
So we might need to call WARN() instead of pr_err() if there are errors in
slub error handling code in general, except when running kunit tests?
Thanks,
Hyeonggon
