Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-27404-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 13:08:20 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@linux.com>,
	Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Valentin.Schneider@arm.com,
	Vanshidhar Konda <vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com>,
	Matteo Carlini <Matteo.Carlini@arm.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	yang@os.amperecomputing.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM64: Dynamically allocate cpumasks and increase
 supported CPUs to 512
Message-ID: <ZaZ_xK5QHVPSD7N6@FVFF77S0Q05N>
References: <794a1211-630b-3ee5-55a3-c06f10df1490@linux.com>
 <ZaVRlHpAOoNIiRiY@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZaVRlHpAOoNIiRiY@shell.armlinux.org.uk>

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 03:39:00PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 04:05:56PM -0800, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) wrote:
> > +# Determines the placement of cpumasks.
> > +#
> > +# With CPUMASK_OFFSTACK the cpumasks are dynamically allocated.
> > +# Useful for machines with lots of core because it avoids increasing
> > +# the size of many of the data structures in the kernel.
> > +#
> > +# If this is off then the cpumasks have a static sizes and are
> > +# embedded within data structures.
> > +#
> > +config CPUMASK_OFFSTACK
> > +	def_bool y
> > +	depends on NR_CPUS > 256
> 
> Should that be ">= 256" ?

I don't think that ">= 256" makes sense. Note that since the cpumasks are
arrays of unsigned long, they're chunked into groups of 64 bits:

    2 to  64 cpus:  1 x unsigned long =>  8 bytes
   65 to 128 cpus:  2 x unsigned long => 16 bytes
  129 to 192 cpus:  3 x unsigned long => 24 bytes
  193 to 256 cpus:  4 x unsigned long => 32 bytes
  257 to 320 cpus:  5 x unsigned long => 40 bytes

.. and so if a mask for 256 CPUs is too big to go in the stack, so is any mask
for 193+ CPUs, and so ">= 256" should be clamped down to ">= 193" or "> 192".
The boundary should be just after a multiple of 64.

How did we choose 256 specifically? I note that x86-64 allows 512 CPUs before
requiring CPUMASK_OFFSTACK, and I see that powerpc selects CPUMASK_OFFSTACK
when NR_CPUS >= 8192.

Mark.