From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kas@kernel.org,
kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Kconfig: Don't select CPUMASK_OFFSTACK with 64K pages
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2026 03:46:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <auR0kSCYyo31Inxf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <auRxNDAe_tv-mCvk@willie-the-truck>
Hello Will,
On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 10:28:04AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 04:59:52AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 07, 2026 at 12:58:16AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > > arm64 selects CPUMASK_OFFSTACK when NR_CPUS is above 256, which keeps
> > > cpumask_var_t off the kernel stack. With 64K pages the kernel stack is
> > > 64K as well, we have enough room to keep cpumask on the stack, avoiding
> > > extra alocation and possible performance penalties.
> > >
> > > Skip the select when ARM64_64K_PAGES is set. A 64K kernel can then raise
> > > NR_CPUS above 256 and keep cpumask_var_t as an inline array. 4K and 16K
> > > page kernels are unchanged.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
> > > ---
> > > Based on Will presentation at LPC, I've decided to have a look at Meta's
> > > stack usage, and I found that this might be an small optimization!?
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > > index 5f2db2cecf9772..b73371327d2a47 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > > @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ config ARM64
> > > select CLONE_BACKWARDS
> > > select COMMON_CLK
> > > select CPU_PM if (SUSPEND || CPU_IDLE)
> > > - select CPUMASK_OFFSTACK if NR_CPUS > 256
> > > + select CPUMASK_OFFSTACK if NR_CPUS > 256 && !ARM64_64K_PAGES
> >
> > Does this one sound sane?
>
> It doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me, to be honest. The page size
> and the number of CPUs are two independent variables, so tying them
> together like this looks a little odd.
Sure, but with 64K pages the kernel stack is _huge_. Why do we still
need to keep the cpumask off the stack frame in that case?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-30 10:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-07 7:58 [PATCH] arm64: Kconfig: Don't select CPUMASK_OFFSTACK with 64K pages Breno Leitao
2026-10-27 11:59 ` Breno Leitao
2026-10-30 10:28 ` Will Deacon
2026-10-30 10:46 ` Breno Leitao [this message]
2026-10-30 11:53 ` Will Deacon
2026-10-30 13:50 ` Breno Leitao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=auR0kSCYyo31Inxf@gmail.com \
--to=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=kas@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox