[PATCH v3] ARM64: Dynamically allocate cpumasks and increase supported CPUs to 512
Marek Szyprowski
m.szyprowski at samsung.com
Thu Mar 14 05:28:40 PDT 2024
Dear All,
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.
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list