Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-103332-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:57:54 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Cc: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	"Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@linux.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@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,
	robin.murphy@arm.com, vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com,
	yang@os.amperecomputing.com, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM64: Dynamically allocate cpumasks and increase
 supported CPUs to 512
Message-ID: <ZfMCYl7GffVcLEUN@arm.com>
References: <c1f2902d-cefc-4122-9b86-d1d32911f590@samsung.com>
 <Ze9TsQ-qVCZMazfI@arm.com>
 <9352f410-9dad-ac89-181a-b3cfc86176b8@linux.com>
 <bf1757ca-6d41-87e7-53dd-56146eef5693@linux.com>
 <ZfCXJRJSMK4tt_Cm@arm.com>
 <ZfG5oyrgGOkpHYD6@bogus>
 <432c1980-b00f-4b07-9e24-0bec52ccb5d6@samsung.com>
 <ZfHevcKpcb6i1fn5@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <ZfK30r8M6zx2aWU6@arm.com>
 <a210104f-a3af-4554-b734-097cfa77a470@samsung.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <a210104f-a3af-4554-b734-097cfa77a470@samsung.com>

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 01:28:40PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> On 14.03.2024 09:39, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 05:13:33PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> >> So, I wonder whether what you're seeing is a latent bug which is
> >> being tickled by the presence of the CPU masks being off-stack
> >> changing the kernel timing.
> >>
> >> I would suggest the printk debug approach may help here to see when
> >> the OPPs are begun to be parsed, when they're created etc and their
> >> timing relationship to being used. Given the suspicion, it's possible
> >> that the mere addition of printk() may "fix" the problem, which again
> >> would be another semi-useful data point.
> > It might be an init order problem. Passing "initcall_debug" on the
> > cmdline might help a bit.
> >
> > It would also be useful in dev_pm_opp_set_config(), in the WARN_ON
> > block, to print opp_table->opp_list.next to get an idea whether it looks
> > like a valid pointer or memory corruption.
> 
> I've finally found some time to do the step-by-step printk-based 
> debugging of this issue and finally found what's broken!
> 
> Here is the fix:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
> index 8bd6e5e8f121..2d83bbc65dd0 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
> @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ static int dt_cpufreq_early_init(struct device *dev, 
> int cpu)
>  ??????? if (!priv)
>  ??????????????? return -ENOMEM;
> 
> -?????? if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&priv->cpus, GFP_KERNEL))
> +?????? if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&priv->cpus, GFP_KERNEL))
>  ??????????????? return -ENOMEM;
> 
>  ??????? cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, priv->cpus);
> 
> 
> It is really surprising that this didn't blow up for anyone else so 
> far... This means that the $subject patch is fine.
> 
> I will send a proper patch fixing this issue in a few minutes.

Nice. Many thanks for tracking this down. I'll revert the revert of the
CPUMASK_OFFSTACK in the second part of the merging window (I already
sent the pull request).

-- 
Catalin