linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/a6xx: Fix excessive stack usage

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAA8EJpodjP3rY0Twe9sP37LWwk5ppP36dyLC9WKD6CTDOtmwzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 12:27:38 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@...cinc.com>
Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, 
	Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>, 
	Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, 
	Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, 
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, 
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, 
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/a6xx: Fix excessive stack usage

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 at 12:08, Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/28/2024 1:56 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 11:35:47PM +0530, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
> >> Clang-19 and above sometimes end up with multiple copies of the large
> >> a6xx_hfi_msg_bw_table structure on the stack. The problem is that
> >> a6xx_hfi_send_bw_table() calls a number of device specific functions to
> >> fill the structure, but these create another copy of the structure on
> >> the stack which gets copied to the first.
> >>
> >> If the functions get inlined, that busts the warning limit:
> >>
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_hfi.c:631:12: error: stack frame size (1032) exceeds limit (1024) in 'a6xx_hfi_send_bw_table' [-Werror,-Wframe-larger-than]
> >>
> >> Fix this by kmalloc-ating struct a6xx_hfi_msg_bw_table instead of using
> >> the stack. Also, use this opportunity to skip re-initializing this table
> >> to optimize gpu wake up latency.
> >>
> >> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@...cinc.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.h |  1 +
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_hfi.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> >>  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.h
> >> index 94b6c5cab6f4..b4a79f88ccf4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.h
> >> @@ -99,6 +99,7 @@ struct a6xx_gmu {
> >>      struct completion pd_gate;
> >>
> >>      struct qmp *qmp;
> >> +    struct a6xx_hfi_msg_bw_table *bw_table;
> >>  };
> >>
> >>  static inline u32 gmu_read(struct a6xx_gmu *gmu, u32 offset)
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_hfi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_hfi.c
> >> index cdb3f6e74d3e..55e51c81be1f 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_hfi.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_hfi.c
> >> @@ -630,32 +630,42 @@ static void a6xx_build_bw_table(struct a6xx_hfi_msg_bw_table *msg)
> >>
> >>  static int a6xx_hfi_send_bw_table(struct a6xx_gmu *gmu)
> >>  {
> >> -    struct a6xx_hfi_msg_bw_table msg = { 0 };
> >> +    struct a6xx_hfi_msg_bw_table *msg;
> >>      struct a6xx_gpu *a6xx_gpu = container_of(gmu, struct a6xx_gpu, gmu);
> >>      struct adreno_gpu *adreno_gpu = &a6xx_gpu->base;
> >>
> >> +    if (gmu->bw_table)
> >> +            goto send;
> >> +
> >> +    msg = devm_kzalloc(gmu->dev, sizeof(*msg), GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > Is it necessary after being sent? Isn't it better to just kzalloc() it
> > and then kfree() it at the end of the function?
>
> Keeping it around will help to cut down unnecessary work during
> subsequent gpu wake ups.

Then, I'd say, it is better to make it a part of the a6xx_gpu struct.


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry