From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from gentwo.org (gentwo.org [62.72.0.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F08FF13A868; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:06:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.72.0.81 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710263170; cv=none; b=g+SpK7iT5S/1kFszMBrVgFgP5NtAjRUMNpgaQ1p3XfZKaqglsIq4aeR2mz5RXA8EhVD7RnkD1KuKIvEthdAWhZeeia+Naqe0ie5OLyG1Z2yVIaGk8ThWl7ZcQSbyP9Gu/hV8Wuy0biXMkVQiT8tFffZNhby0jzHtkf60BOwI4hM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710263170; c=relaxed/simple; bh=idgAQMXJKPF4HCVM9XW5bm7ejrX4/AFEN2rYgN7+R1A=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hA9ZZpvohCMHZAF/+4fJUPN94Mmw1hOwynkUDjs+ITy6VyyfkiLRipgCI3N23LKoYWlNsFKrRdZj5dlNkIMCoy94NO2YZiMJ/nkQzANh78KyqlXe1AJXIqMhsRRXM0yDiceVb/USOpQYnHU5WtbZA9P57vAVPikkxDOCjNq08L0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=linux.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.72.0.81 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=linux.com Received: by gentwo.org (Postfix, from userid 1003) id E34C540AB1; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gentwo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E264E40A97; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:06:06 -0700 (PDT) From: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" To: Catalin Marinas cc: Marek Szyprowski , Mark Rutland , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , Will Deacon , Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, Matteo.Carlini@arm.com, Valentin.Schneider@arm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, anshuman.khandual@arm.com, Eric Mackay , dave.kleikamp@oracle.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk, robin.murphy@arm.com, vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com, yang@os.amperecomputing.com, Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM64: Dynamically allocate cpumasks and increase supported CPUs to 512 In-Reply-To: <9352f410-9dad-ac89-181a-b3cfc86176b8@linux.com> Message-ID: References: <37099a57-b655-3b3a-56d0-5f7fbd49d7db@gentwo.org> <9352f410-9dad-ac89-181a-b3cfc86176b8@linux.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 11 Mar 2024, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) wrote: > This could be an issue in the ARM64 arch code itself where there maybe an > assumption elsewhere that a cpumask can always store up to NR_CPU cpus and > not only nr_cpu_ids as OFFSTACK does. > > How can I exercise the opp driver in order to recreate the problem? > > I assume the opp driver is ARM specific? x86 defaults to OFFSTACK so if there > is an issue with OFFSTACK in opp then it should fail with kernel default > configuration on that platform. I checked the ARM64 arch sources use of NR_CPUS and its all fine. Also verified in my testing logs that CONFIG_PM_OPP was set in all tests. No warnings in the kernel log during those tests. How to reproduce this?