[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bca79bc1-9e7c-b145-0b0b-0ce725d58821@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 20:46:02 +0100
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: arnd@...nel.org
Cc: Hawking.Zhang@....com, Jack.Gui@....com, KevinYang.Wang@....com,
Xinhui.Pan@....com, airlied@...il.com, alexander.deucher@....com,
amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, arnd@...db.de,
christian.koenig@....com, daniel@...ll.ch,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, evan.quan@....com,
kenneth.feng@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, nathan@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
trix@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amd/pm: avoid large variable on kernel stack
Le 15/12/2022 à 17:36, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@...lic.gmane.org>
>
> The activity_monitor_external[] array is too big to fit on the
> kernel stack, resulting in this warning with clang:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c:1438:12: error: stack frame size (1040) exceeds limit (1024) in 'smu_v13_0_7_get_power_profile_mode' [-Werror,-Wframe-larger-than]
>
> Use dynamic allocation instead. It should also be possible to
> have single element here instead of the array, but this seems
> easier.
>
> Fixes: 334682ae8151 ("drm/amd/pm: enable workload type change on smu_v13_0_7")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@...lic.gmane.org>
> ---
> .../drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c
> index c270f94a1b86..7eba854e09ec 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c
> @@ -1439,7 +1439,7 @@ static int smu_v13_0_7_get_power_limit(struct smu_context *smu,
>
> static int smu_v13_0_7_get_power_profile_mode(struct smu_context *smu, char *buf)
> {
> - DpmActivityMonitorCoeffIntExternal_t activity_monitor_external[PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COUNT];
> + DpmActivityMonitorCoeffIntExternal_t *activity_monitor_external;
> uint32_t i, j, size = 0;
> int16_t workload_type = 0;
> int result = 0;
> @@ -1447,6 +1447,12 @@ static int smu_v13_0_7_get_power_profile_mode(struct smu_context *smu, char *buf
> if (!buf)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + activity_monitor_external = kcalloc(sizeof(activity_monitor_external),
Hi,
Before, 'activity_monitor_external' was not initialized.
Maybe kcalloc() is enough?
sizeof(*activity_monitor_external)?
~~~~
> + PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COUNT,
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!activity_monitor_external)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> size += sysfs_emit_at(buf, size, " ");
> for (i = 0; i <= PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_WINDOW3D; i++)
Unrelated, but wouldn't it be more straightforward with "<
PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COUNT"?
> size += sysfs_emit_at(buf, size, "%-14s%s", amdgpu_pp_profile_name[i],
> @@ -1459,15 +1465,17 @@ static int smu_v13_0_7_get_power_profile_mode(struct smu_context *smu, char *buf
> workload_type = smu_cmn_to_asic_specific_index(smu,
> CMN2ASIC_MAPPING_WORKLOAD,
> i);
> - if (workload_type < 0)
> - return -EINVAL;
> + if (workload_type < 0) {
> + result = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
>
> result = smu_cmn_update_table(smu,
> SMU_TABLE_ACTIVITY_MONITOR_COEFF, workload_type,
> (void *)(&activity_monitor_external[i]), false);
> if (result) {
> dev_err(smu->adev->dev, "[%s] Failed to get activity monitor!", __func__);
> - return result;
> + goto out;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -1495,7 +1503,10 @@ do { \
> PRINT_DPM_MONITOR(Fclk_BoosterFreq);
> #undef PRINT_DPM_MONITOR
>
> - return size;
> + result = size;
> +out:
> + kfree(activity_monitor_external);
> + return result;
> }
>
> static int smu_v13_0_7_set_power_profile_mode(struct smu_context *smu, long *input, uint32_t size)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists