Re: linux-next: test failure after merge of the mm-nonmm-unstable tree

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 11:02:30PM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
> Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> >>> Note that we are running on an arm64 host with access to KVM so the
> >>> above should be running with KVM rather than being emulated.

> > Possibly because the we got scheduled out while running the test. Not
> > sure why the test started failing now. I'm guessing the VM running the
> > test isn't under CPU stress and the like.

Yes, the system should be doing nothing except run KUnit and any random
background stuff, it's pretty high end so any background stuff shouldn't
need to disturb KUnit.  At some point I will go back to running multiple
tests in parallel but didn't do that yet.

As I indicated above I'm fairly sure the main difference is that I'm
running on actual hardware not emulation, though I do think there's
something else that made it more prominent in that situation.  I'm
fairly sure Thierry was using emulation while he was running -next.

> > If that can happen then I should relax the second condition.

> Thinking some more, the condition is much too strict.

> Instead of:
>   succeeds => (runtime <= timeout_ns)

> A better check would be:
>   !succeeds => runtime >= timeout_ns

> I'll send a patch to that effect.

Hopefully that's it...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature