Re: [PATCH 0/2] kselftest: mm: fix intermittent failure khugepaged test

[Yeoreum Yun]

> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 10:21:35 +0100 Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > There are intermittent failures in collapse_max_ptes_swap() and
> > collapse_max_ptes_shared() when using the khugepaged_context:
> > 
> >   # Run test: collapse_max_ptes_shared (khugepaged:anon)
> >   # Allocate huge page... OK
> >   # Share huge page over fork()... OK
> >   # Trigger CoW on page 1023 of 2048... OK
> >   # Maybe collapse with max_ptes_shared exceeded.... OK
> >   # Trigger CoW on page 1024 of 2048... Fail
> >   Bail out! Unexpected huge page
> >   # Planned tests != run tests (26 != 23)
> >   # Totals: pass:23 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> > 
> >   # Run test: collapse_max_ptes_swap (khugepaged:anon)
> >   # Swapout 257 of 2048 pages... OK
> >   # Maybe collapse with max_ptes_swap exceeded.... OK
> >   # Swapout 256 of 2048 pages... OK
> >   Bail out! Unexpected huge page
> >   # Planned tests != run tests (26 != 17)
> >   # Totals: pass:17 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> > 
> > This happens because khugepaged may collapse the pages before wait_for_scan()
> > is called, causing a sanity check that expects uncollapsed pages to fail.
> 
> Is this something we should be testing for?  If I'm understanding
> correctly, success/failure is dependent on timing vargaries inside the
> kernel and that isn't something we can reliably test for.
> 
> IOW, should we say "bad idea" and just delete this test case?

If the test environment can be set up to control those timing vagaries,
I believe in that such cases are meaningful for verifying the expected
behavior.

This patch sets up the conditions needed to make the result reliable,
so I don't think this test case should be dismissed as a bad idea or
deleted as inherently unreliable.

-- 
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun