From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH V6] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle injection framework Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:52:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20180612125247.GO12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1528804816-32636-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <20180612123036.GJ12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <16d5649d-863c-10c7-9287-202568e713e6@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16d5649d-863c-10c7-9287-202568e713e6@linaro.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Eduardo Valentin , Javi Merino , Leo Yan , Kevin Wangtao , Vincent Guittot , Rui Zhang , Daniel Thompson , Andrea Parri List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:44:29PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > 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. Yes, that should all get fixed. It's mostly legacy code I suppose. It's been at least 10 years I think since we merged the whole CPUMASK_OFFSTACK stuff. > What would be the best practice ? Allocate a per cpumask at init time as > a temporary mask to work with ? In this case, you can do: + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, &ii_dev->cpumask, cpu_online_mask) { + iit = per_cpu_ptr(&idle_injection_thread, cpu); + iit->should_run = 1; + wake_up_process(iit->tsk); + }