[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16d5649d-863c-10c7-9287-202568e713e6@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:44:29 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: viresh.kumar@...aro.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Kevin Wangtao <kevin.wangtao@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle injection
framework
On 12/06/2018 14:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> +static void __idle_injection_wakeup(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
>> +{
>> + struct idle_injection_thread *iit;
>> + struct cpumask tmp;
>> + unsigned int cpu;
>> +
>> + cpumask_and(&tmp, ii_dev->cpumask, cpu_online_mask);
>
> You should not be having a cpumask on the stack. Those things can be
> ginormous.
Ok, the kernel code uses of cpumask_t on the stack when dealing with
cpumask_and. I assume it is also not recommended.
What would be the best practice ? Allocate a per cpumask at init time as
a temporary mask to work with ?
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists