On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 01:23:40PM -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
Increasing the engine count causes a couple of local array variables
to exceed the kernel stack limit. So make them dynamic allocations
instead.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_execlists.c | 10 ++++--
.../gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_workarounds.c | 32 ++++++++++++-------
2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_execlists.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_execlists.c
index 08896ae027d5..1e7fe2222479 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_execlists.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_execlists.c
@@ -3561,12 +3561,16 @@ static int smoke_crescendo(struct preempt_smoke *smoke, unsigned int flags)
#define BATCH BIT(0)
{
struct task_struct *tsk[I915_NUM_ENGINES] = {};
- struct preempt_smoke arg[I915_NUM_ENGINES];
+ struct preempt_smoke *arg;
struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
enum intel_engine_id id;
unsigned long count;
int err = 0;
+ arg = kmalloc_array(I915_NUM_ENGINES, sizeof(*arg), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!arg)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
for_each_engine(engine, smoke->gt, id) {
arg[id] = *smoke;
arg[id].engine = engine;
@@ -3574,7 +3578,7 @@ static int smoke_crescendo(struct preempt_smoke *smoke, unsigned int flags)
arg[id].batch = NULL;
arg[id].count = 0;
- tsk[id] = kthread_run(smoke_crescendo_thread, &arg,
+ tsk[id] = kthread_run(smoke_crescendo_thread, arg,
"igt/smoke:%d", id);
if (IS_ERR(tsk[id])) {
err = PTR_ERR(tsk[id]);
@@ -3603,6 +3607,8 @@ static int smoke_crescendo(struct preempt_smoke *smoke, unsigned int flags)
pr_info("Submitted %lu crescendo:%x requests across %d engines and %d contexts\n",
count, flags, smoke->gt->info.num_engines, smoke->ncontext);
+
+ kfree(arg);
return 0;
this looks correctly, but apparently this test doesn't test anything as
`err` is write-only - there is only one read, but basically to avoid
overriding an earlier error.
looks like this should be `return err;` ?
+Chris
This patch itself looks good.
Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx>
Lucas De Marchi
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
