lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/7] arm64: add support for the AMU extension v1
From
Date
On 12/02/2020 11:30, Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose wrote:
>> +static bool has_amu(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap,
>> +               int __unused)
>> +{
>> +    /*
>> +     * The AMU extension is a non-conflicting feature: the kernel can
>> +     * safely run a mix of CPUs with and without support for the
>> +     * activity monitors extension. Therefore, if not disabled through
>> +     * the kernel command line early parameter, enable the capability
>> +     * to allow any late CPU to use the feature.
>> +     *
>> +     * With this feature enabled, the cpu_enable function will be called
>> +     * for all CPUs that match the criteria, including secondary and
>> +     * hotplugged, marking this feature as present on that respective CPU.
>> +     * The enable function will also print a detection message.
>> +     */
>> +
>> +    if (!disable_amu && !zalloc_cpumask_var(&amu_cpus, GFP_KERNEL)) {
>
> This looks problematic. Don't we end up in allocating the memory during
> "each CPU" check and thus leaking memory ? Do we really need to allocate
> this dynamically ?
>

For the static vs dynamic thing, I think it's not *too* important here since
we don't risk pwning the stack because of the cpumask. That said, if we are
somewhat pedantic about memory usage, the static allocation is done
against NR_CPUS whereas the dynamic one is done against nr_cpu_ids.
Pretty inconsequential for a single cpumask, but I guess it all adds up
eventually...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-12 15:55    [W:0.212 / U:1.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site