Hi Sam,
Thanks for the review.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 07:13:50AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Hi Dawei,
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:49:44PM +0800, Dawei Li wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This series aims at removing on-stack cpumask var usage for sparc arch.
> >
> > Generally it's preferable to avoid placing cpumasks on the stack, as
> > for large values of NR_CPUS these can consume significant amounts of
> > stack space and make stack overflows more likely.
>
> Took a quick look at the patches, looks good except the one the bot
> already complained about.
I will fix this building warning in respinning.
> A quick grep shows a few more cases where we have an on-stack cpumask
> in sparc code.
>
> kernel/ds.c: cpumask_t mask;
About this case, it's kinda tricky for:
- dr_cpu_data() returns void, so alloc_cpumask_var() is no go.
- No idea of the calling context of dr_cpu_data(). IIUC,
dr_cpu_data()
->dr_cpu_configure()
->kzalloc(resp_len, GFP_KERNEL)
So I guess it's in process context?
If consumption above is OK, a simple but _ugly_ solution could be:
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/ds.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/ds.c
index ffdc15588ac2..c9e4ebdccf49 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/ds.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/ds.c
@@ -634,7 +634,8 @@ static void dr_cpu_data(struct ds_info *dp, struct ds_cap_state *cp, void *buf,
struct dr_cpu_tag *tag = (struct dr_cpu_tag *) (data + 1);
u32 *cpu_list = (u32 *) (tag + 1);
u64 req_num = tag->req_num;
- cpumask_t mask;
+ static DEFINE_MUTEX(mask_lock);
+ static cpumask_t mask;
unsigned int i;
int err;
@@ -651,6 +652,8 @@ static void dr_cpu_data(struct ds_info *dp, struct ds_cap_state *cp, void *buf,
purge_dups(cpu_list, tag->num_records);
+ mutex_lock(&mask_lock);
+
cpumask_clear(&mask);
for (i = 0; i < tag->num_records; i++) {
if (cpu_list[i] == CPU_SENTINEL)
@@ -665,6 +668,8 @@ static void dr_cpu_data(struct ds_info *dp, struct ds_cap_state *cp, void *buf,
else
err = dr_cpu_unconfigure(dp, cp, req_num, &mask);
+ mutex_unlock(&mask_lock);
+
if (err)
dr_cpu_send_error(dp, cp, data);
}
How does it sound to you?
> kernel/leon_kernel.c: cpumask_t mask;
It's in irqchip::irq_set_affinity(), which is in atomic context(raw spinlock(s) held),
so dynamic allocation is not a good idea.
My proposal(*untested*) is somewhat complicated for it introduces a new helper.
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/leon_kernel.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/leon_kernel.c
index 4c61da491fee..6eced7acb8bc 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/leon_kernel.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/leon_kernel.c
@@ -104,15 +104,25 @@ unsigned long leon_get_irqmask(unsigned int irq)
}
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+
+static bool cpumask_include(const struct cpumask *srcp1, const struct cpumask *srcp2)
+{
+ unsigned int cpu;
+
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, srcp2) {
+ if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, srcp1))
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ return true;
+}
+
static int irq_choose_cpu(const struct cpumask *affinity)
{
- cpumask_t mask;
+ unsigned int cpu = cpumask_first_and(affinity, cpu_online_mask);
- cpumask_and(&mask, cpu_online_mask, affinity);
- if (cpumask_equal(&mask, cpu_online_mask) || cpumask_empty(&mask))
- return boot_cpu_id;
- else
- return cpumask_first(&mask);
+ return cpumask_include(affinity, cpu_online_mask) || cpu >= nr_cpu_ids ?
+ boot_cpu_id : cpu;
}
#else
#define irq_choose_cpu(affinity) boot_cpu_id
Is it OK?
[cc Yury for bitmap API]
> kernel/leon_smp.c:static void leon_cross_call(void *func, cpumask_t mask, unsigned long arg1,
> kernel/sun4d_smp.c:static void sun4d_cross_call(void *func, cpumask_t mask, unsigned long arg1,
Actually I am awared of existence of (at least some of) them, but so far I
have not found a _proper_ way of dealing with them(especially for case of
ds.c).
Please lemme dig into it.
Thanks,
Dawei
>
> Do you plan to look at the other on-stack users too?
> It would be nice to see them all gone in one patch-set.
>
> Sam
>
