On Jan 27 2022, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Atish, > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 9:48 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 2:02 AM Atish Patra <atishp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ahh yes. hmask will be incorrect if the bootcpu(cpu 0) is a higher >> > hartid and it is trying to do a remote tlb flush/IPI >> > to lower the hartid. We should generate the hartid array before the loop. >> > >> > Can you try this diff ? It seems to work for me during multiple boot >> > cycle on the unleashed. >> > >> > You can find the patch here as well >> > https://github.com/atishp04/linux/commits/v5.17-rc1 >> >> Thanks, that fixes the issue for me. >> >> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c >> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c > >> > @@ -345,13 +368,21 @@ static int __sbi_rfence_v02(int fid, const >> > struct cpumask *cpu_mask, >> > unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5) >> > { >> > unsigned long hartid, cpuid, hmask = 0, hbase = 0; >> > - int result; >> > + int result, index = 0, max_index = 0; >> > + unsigned long hartid_arr[NR_CPUS] = {0}; >> >> That's up to 256 bytes on the stack. And more if the maximum >> number of cores is increased. > > I.e. 4 KiB with the proposed increase to 256 CPUs, as mentioned in And those 4K need to be cleared each time the function is called, even if there is only a small number of cpus. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1 "And now for something completely different."
