[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <405c2ac2-a61c-e7e6-3487-c55bcdf1e839@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:17:19 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: powernv: fix stack bloat and NR_CPUS
limitation
On 10/30/19 7:39 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Sorry I didn't reply to this sooner, too many patches :/
>
> John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com> writes:
>> The following build warning occurred on powerpc 64-bit builds:
>>
>> drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c: In function 'init_chip_info':
>> drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c:1070:1: warning: the frame size of 1040 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]
>
> Oddly I don't see that warning in my builds, eg with GCC9:
>
> https://travis-ci.org/linuxppc/linux/jobs/604870722
This is with a cross-compiler based on gcc 8.1.0, which I got from:
https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/8.1.0/
I'll put that in the v3 commit description.
>
>> This is due to putting 1024 bytes on the stack:
>>
>> unsigned int chip[256];
>>
>> ...and while looking at this, it also has a bug: it fails with a stack
>> overrun, if CONFIG_NR_CPUS > 256.
>
> It _probably_ doesn't, because it only increments the index when the
> chip_id of the CPU changes, ie. it doesn't create a chip for every CPU.
> But I agree it's flaky the way it's written.
I'll soften up the wording accordingly.
>
>> Fix both problems by dynamically allocating based on CONFIG_NR_CPUS.
>
> Shouldn't it use num_possible_cpus() ?
>
> Given the for loop is over possible CPUs that seems like the upper
> bound. In practice it should be lower because some CPUs will share a
> chip.
>
OK, I see, that's more consistent with the code, I'll change to that.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
>
>
>> Fixes: 053819e0bf840 ("cpufreq: powernv: Handle throttling due to Pmax capping at chip level")
>> Cc: Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>
>> Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
>> Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
>> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes since v1: includes Viresh's review commit fixes.
>>
>> drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
>> index 6061850e59c9..5b2e968cb5ea 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1041,9 +1041,14 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver powernv_cpufreq_driver = {
>>
>> static int init_chip_info(void)
>> {
>> - unsigned int chip[256];
>> + unsigned int *chip;
>> unsigned int cpu, i;
>> unsigned int prev_chip_id = UINT_MAX;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + chip = kcalloc(CONFIG_NR_CPUS, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!chip)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> unsigned int id = cpu_to_chip_id(cpu);
>> @@ -1055,8 +1060,10 @@ static int init_chip_info(void)
>> }
>>
>> chips = kcalloc(nr_chips, sizeof(struct chip), GFP_KERNEL);
>> - if (!chips)
>> - return -ENOMEM;
>> + if (!chips) {
>> + ret = -ENOMEM;
>> + goto free_and_return;
>> + }
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < nr_chips; i++) {
>> chips[i].id = chip[i];
>> @@ -1066,7 +1073,9 @@ static int init_chip_info(void)
>> per_cpu(chip_info, cpu) = &chips[i];
>> }
>>
>> - return 0;
>> +free_and_return:
>> + kfree(chip);
>> + return ret;
>> }
>>
>> static inline void clean_chip_info(void)
>> --
>> 2.23.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists