Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-99029-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <8abb1a69-6cbd-4a36-ab1d-d269cdafa391@samsung.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:56:37 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM64: Dynamically allocate cpumasks and increase
 supported CPUs to 512
Content-Language: en-US
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)"
	<cl@linux.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, Viresh
	Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, Matteo.Carlini@arm.com,
	Valentin.Schneider@arm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	anshuman.khandual@arm.com, Eric Mackay <eric.mackay@oracle.com>,
	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 <nm@ti.com>, Stephen Boyd
	<sboyd@kernel.org>
From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
In-Reply-To: <Ze71H4AdY786nSvn@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
CMS-TYPE: 201P
References: <37099a57-b655-3b3a-56d0-5f7fbd49d7db@gentwo.org>
	<CGME20240308140130eucas1p1259c805a0b6491ce2f69c6fca0264b1f@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
	<c1f2902d-cefc-4122-9b86-d1d32911f590@samsung.com>
	<ZesmAO1jJfEjTwxd@arm.com>
	<f160a532-1d31-41a7-b8ae-de8575c395e9@samsung.com>
	<e3952dc0-ec28-e7c7-e858-c47f146c93de@linux.com>
	<Ze71H4AdY786nSvn@FVFF77S0Q05N>

On 11.03.2024 13:12, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 09:08:59AM -0800, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>>>>> It looks that cpufreq-dt and/or opp drivers needs some adjustments
>>>>> related with this change.
>>>> That's strange. Is this with defconfig? I wonder whether NR_CPUS being
>>>> larger caused the issue with this specific code. Otherwise
>>>> CPUMASK_OFFSTACK may not work that well on arm64.
>> cpumask handling must use the accessor functions provided in
>> include/linux/cpumask.h for declaring and accessing cpumasks. It is likely
>> related to the driver opencoding one of the accessors.
> I took a look at both the OPP code and the cpufreq-dt code and it looks like
> those are doign the right thing w.r.t. cpumask manipulation (i.e. they only use
> the cpumask accessors, and use the cpumask_var_*() functions to dynamically
> allocate/free cpumasks). Maybe I've missed something, but superficially those
> look right.
>
> Marek, can you try reverting this commit and trying defconfig + NR_CPUS=512?

Yes, with $subject reverted and CONFIG_NR_CPUS=512 everything works 
fine, so it must be something else broken.

> That'll have CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=n, and:
>
> * If that blows up, we know the problem is independent of CPUMASK_OFFSTACK, and
>    has something to do with large cpumasks (either a driver bug, or elsewhere).
>
> * If that doesn't blow up, it suggests the problem is related to
>    CPUMASK_OFFSTACK rather than with large cpumasks specifically.
>
> Either way, we probably need to revert this patch for now, as this won't have
> enough time to soak in linux-next in time for v6.9.

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland