linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: powernv: fix stack bloat and NR_CPUS limitation
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:17:19 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <405c2ac2-a61c-e7e6-3487-c55bcdf1e839@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87pnidbptw.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>

On 10/30/19 7:39 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> Sorry I didn't reply to this sooner, too many patches :/
> 
> John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> writes:
>> The following build warning occurred on powerpc 64-bit builds:
>>
>> drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c: In function 'init_chip_info':
>> drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c:1070:1: warning: the frame size of 1040 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]
> 
> Oddly I don't see that warning in my builds, eg with GCC9:
> 
>    https://travis-ci.org/linuxppc/linux/jobs/604870722

This is with a cross-compiler based on gcc 8.1.0, which I got from:
   https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/8.1.0/

I'll put that in the v3 commit description.

> 
>> This is due to putting 1024 bytes on the stack:
>>
>>      unsigned int chip[256];
>>
>> ...and while looking at this, it also has a bug: it fails with a stack
>> overrun, if CONFIG_NR_CPUS > 256.
> 
> It _probably_ doesn't, because it only increments the index when the
> chip_id of the CPU changes, ie. it doesn't create a chip for every CPU.
> But I agree it's flaky the way it's written.

I'll soften up the wording accordingly.

> 
>> Fix both problems by dynamically allocating based on CONFIG_NR_CPUS.
> 
> Shouldn't it use num_possible_cpus() ?
> 
> Given the for loop is over possible CPUs that seems like the upper
> bound. In practice it should be lower because some CPUs will share a
> chip.
> 

OK, I see, that's more consistent with the code, I'll change to that.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

> 
> 
>> Fixes: 053819e0bf840 ("cpufreq: powernv: Handle throttling due to Pmax capping at chip level")
>> Cc: Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
>> Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
>> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes since v1: includes Viresh's review commit fixes.
>>
>>   drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
>> index 6061850e59c9..5b2e968cb5ea 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1041,9 +1041,14 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver powernv_cpufreq_driver = {
>>   
>>   static int init_chip_info(void)
>>   {
>> -	unsigned int chip[256];
>> +	unsigned int *chip;
>>   	unsigned int cpu, i;
>>   	unsigned int prev_chip_id = UINT_MAX;
>> +	int ret = 0;
>> +
>> +	chip = kcalloc(CONFIG_NR_CPUS, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!chip)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>   
>>   	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>>   		unsigned int id = cpu_to_chip_id(cpu);
>> @@ -1055,8 +1060,10 @@ static int init_chip_info(void)
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	chips = kcalloc(nr_chips, sizeof(struct chip), GFP_KERNEL);
>> -	if (!chips)
>> -		return -ENOMEM;
>> +	if (!chips) {
>> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +		goto free_and_return;
>> +	}
>>   
>>   	for (i = 0; i < nr_chips; i++) {
>>   		chips[i].id = chip[i];
>> @@ -1066,7 +1073,9 @@ static int init_chip_info(void)
>>   			per_cpu(chip_info, cpu) =  &chips[i];
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	return 0;
>> +free_and_return:
>> +	kfree(chip);
>> +	return ret;
>>   }
>>   
>>   static inline void clean_chip_info(void)
>> -- 
>> 2.23.0

  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-31  5:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-18  4:55 [PATCH v2] cpufreq: powernv: fix stack bloat and NR_CPUS limitation John Hubbard
2019-10-18  5:07 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-10-28 15:26   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-10-31  2:39 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-10-31  5:17   ` John Hubbard [this message]
2019-11-06  3:35     ` Michael Ellerman

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=405c2ac2-a61c-e7e6-3487-c55bcdf1e839@nvidia.com \
    --to=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).