On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 03:56:37PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > On 11.03.2024 13:12, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 09:08:59AM -0800, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) wrote: > >> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > >>>>> It looks that cpufreq-dt and/or opp drivers needs some adjustments > >>>>> related with this change. > >>>> That's strange. Is this with defconfig? I wonder whether NR_CPUS being > >>>> larger caused the issue with this specific code. Otherwise > >>>> CPUMASK_OFFSTACK may not work that well on arm64. > >> cpumask handling must use the accessor functions provided in > >> include/linux/cpumask.h for declaring and accessing cpumasks. It is likely > >> related to the driver opencoding one of the accessors. > > I took a look at both the OPP code and the cpufreq-dt code and it looks like > > those are doign the right thing w.r.t. cpumask manipulation (i.e. they only use > > the cpumask accessors, and use the cpumask_var_*() functions to dynamically > > allocate/free cpumasks). Maybe I've missed something, but superficially those > > look right. > > > > Marek, can you try reverting this commit and trying defconfig + NR_CPUS=512? > > Yes, with $subject reverted and CONFIG_NR_CPUS=512 everything works > fine, so it must be something else broken. Thanks for confirming. Would you mind testing the problematic commit with CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS enabled? If it doesn't show anything obvious that can be fixed quickly, I'll revert the commit and queue it again after -rc1 for 6.10 (I haven't sent 6.9 the pull request yet). -- Catalin
