On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 05:51:04PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > On 11.03.2024 16:22, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > 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). > > I've enabled this option, but unfortunately it didn't reveal anything > more besides the warning and error I've posted in my initial report. I > will try to analyze this issue further, but I won't manage to do this today. No worries, thanks for giving this a try. -- Catalin
