Re: [regression] linux-6.6.y, minmax: virtual memory exhausted in i586 chroot during kernel compilation

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 04:01:23PM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 13.02.24 15:50, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 05:16:58PM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> >>
> >> I noticed a regression report in bugzilla.kernel.org that seems to be
> >> specific to the linux-6.6.y series:
> >>
> >> Quoting from https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218484 :
> >>
> >>> After upgrading to version 6.6.16, the kernel compilation on a i586
> >>> arch (on a 32bit chroot in a 64bit host) fails with a message:
> >>>
> >>> virtual memory exhausted: Cannot allocate memory
> >>>
> >>> this happens even lowering the number of parallel compilation
> >>> threads. On a x86_64 arch the same problem doesn't occur. It's not
> >>> clear whether some weird recursion is triggered that exhausts the
> >>> memory, but it seems that the problem is caused by the patchset
> >>> 'minmax' added to the 6.6.16 version, in particular it seems caused
> >>> by these patches:
> >>>
> >>> - minmax-allow-min-max-clamp-if-the-arguments-have-the-same-signedness.patch
> >>> - minmax-fix-indentation-of-__cmp_once-and-__clamp_once.patch
> >>> - minmax-allow-comparisons-of-int-against-unsigned-char-short.patch
> >>> - minmax-relax-check-to-allow-comparison-between-unsigned-arguments-and-signed-constants.patch
> >>>
> >>> Reverting those patches fixes the memory exhaustion problem during compilation.
> >>
> >> The reporter later added:
> >>
> >>> From a quick test the same problem doesn't occur in 6.8-rc4.
> >> See the ticket for more details.
> >
> > I think this was already fixed in 6.7 or Linus's tree, but I can't seem
> > to find the commit at the moment.
> 
> I thought so as well, but was in the same situation. But your comment
> made me look again and now I found it: that was 31e97d7c9ae3de ("media:
> solo6x10: replace max(a, min(b, c)) by clamp(b, a, c)"), which indeed is
> not yet in 6.6.y.

Yes, that's the one, thanks!

I've queued it up now.

greg k-h