On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 5:10 AM Samuel Holland
<samuel.holland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On 2023-12-09 2:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 06:04, Samuel Holland wrote:
> >> On 2023-11-29 6:42 PM, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 02:23:01PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 07:05:15PM -0800, Samuel Holland wrote:
> >>>>> RISC-V uses kernel_fpu_begin()/kernel_fpu_end() like several other
> >>>>> architectures. Enabling hardware FP requires overriding the ISA string
> >>>>> for the relevant compilation units.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ah yes, bringing the joy of frame-larger-than warnings to RISC-V:
> >>>> ../drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dml/dcn32/display_mode_vba_32.c:58:13: warning: stack frame size (2416) exceeds limit (2048) in 'DISPCLKDPPCLKDCFCLKDeepSleepPrefetchParametersWatermarksAndPerformanceCalculation' [-Wframe-larger-than]
> >>>
> >>> :(
> >>>
> >>>> Nathan, have you given up on these being sorted out?
> >>>
> >>> Does your configuration have KASAN (I don't think RISC-V supports
> >>> KCSAN)? It is possible that dml/dcn32 needs something similar to commit
> >>> 6740ec97bcdb ("drm/amd/display: Increase frame warning limit with KASAN
> >>> or KCSAN in dml2")?
> >>>
> >>> I am not really interested in playing whack-a-mole with these warnings
> >>> like I have done in the past for the reasons I outlined here:
> >>>
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/20231019205117.GA839902@dev-arch.thelio-3990X/
> >>
> >> I also see one of these with clang 17 even with KASAN disabled:
> >>
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dml/dcn32/display_mode_vba_32.c:37:6:
> >> warning: stack frame size (2208) exceeds limit (2048) in 'dml32_recalculate'
> >> [-Wframe-larger-than]
> >> void dml32_recalculate(struct display_mode_lib *mode_lib)
> >>
> >> ^
> >> 1532/2208 (69.38%) spills, 676/2208 (30.62%) variables
> >>
> >> So I'm in favor of just raising the limit for these files for clang, like you
> >> suggested in the linked thread.
> >
> > How about just adding a BUG_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV))
> > in that function? That should also avoid the build failure
> > but give a better indication of where the problem is
> > if someone actually runs into that function and triggers
> > a runtime stack overflow.
>
> Won't that break actual users of the driver, trading an unlikely but
> theoretically possible stack overflow for a guaranteed crash? The intent of this
> series is that I have one of these GPUs plugged in to a RISC-V board, and I want
> to use it.
Does this patch address the issue?
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/agd5f/linux/-/commit/72ada8603e36291ad91e4f40f10ef742ef79bc4e
Alex
