From: Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@gmail.com>
To: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Cc: takahiro.akashi@linaro.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will.deacon@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
mark.rutland@arm.com, barami97@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: Expand the stack trace feature to support IRQ stack
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 21:12:14 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <B6AB90B9-3AA9-413A-B357-137710E89C7C@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <04D64B22-8EF5-400E-A7F0-1CD0AB48184D@gmail.com>
On Oct 14, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:00 PM, James Morse wrote:
>> Hi Jungseok,
>
> Hi James,
>
>> On 12/10/15 23:13, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 1:34 AM, James Morse wrote:
>>>> Having two kmem_caches for 16K stacks on a 64K page system may be wasteful
>>>> (especially for systems with few cpus)…
>>>
>>> This would be a single concern. To address this issue, I drop the 'static'
>>> keyword in thread_info_cache. Please refer to the below hunk.
>>
>> Its only a problem on systems with 64K pages, which don't have a multiple
>> of 4 cpus. I suspect if you turn on 64K pages, you have many cores with
>> plenty of memory…
>
> Yes, the problem 'two kmem_caches' comes from only 64K page system.
>
> I don't get the statement 'which don't have a multiple of 4 cpus'.
> Could you point out what I am missing?
You're talking about sl{a|u}b allocator behavior. If so, I got what you meant.
> Since I don't have platforms which have many cores and huge memory,
> I cannot play with this series on them.
>
>>>> The alternative is to defining CONFIG_ARCH_THREAD_INFO_ALLOCATOR and
>>>> allocate all stack memory from arch code. (Largely copied code, prevents
>>>> irq stacks being a different size, and nothing uses that define today!)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Almost same story I've been testing.
>>>
>>> I'm aligned with yours Regarding CONFIG_ARCH_THREAD_INFO_ALLOCATOR.
>>>
>>> Another approach I've tried is the following data structure, but it's not
>>> a good fit for this case due to __per_cpu_offset which is page-size aligned,
>>> not thread-size.
>>>
>>> struct irq_stack {
>>> char stack[THREAD_SIZE];
>>> char *highest;
>>> } __aligned(THREAD_SIZE);
>>>
>>> DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct irq_stack, irq_stacks);
>>
>> Yes, x86 does this - but it increases the Image size by 16K, as that space
>> could have some initialisation values. This isn't a problem on x86 as
>> no-one uses the uncompressed image.
>>
>> I would avoid this approach due to the bloat!
>>
>>>
>>> ----8<-----
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
>>> index 6ea82e8..d3619b3 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
>>> @@ -1,7 +1,9 @@
>>> #ifndef __ASM_IRQ_H
>>> #define __ASM_IRQ_H
>>>
>>> +#include <linux/gfp.h>
>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
>>>
>>> #include <asm-generic/irq.h>
>>>
>>> @@ -9,6 +11,21 @@ struct irq_stack {
>>> void *stack;
>>> };
>>>
>>> +#if THREAD_SIZE >= PAGE_SIZE
>>> +static inline void *__alloc_irq_stack(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return (void *)__get_free_pages(THREADINFO_GFP | __GFP_ZERO,
>>> + THREAD_SIZE_ORDER);
>>> +}
>>> +#else
>>> +extern struct kmem_cache *thread_info_cache;
>>
>> If this has been made a published symbol, it should go in a header file.
>
> Sure.
I had the wrong impression that there is a room under include/linux/*.
IMO, this is architectural option whether arch relies on thread_info_cache or not.
In other words, it would be clear to put this extern under arch/*/include/asm/*.
Thoughts?
Best Regards
Jungseok Lee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-14 12:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-07 15:28 [PATCH v4 0/2] arm64: Introduce " Jungseok Lee
2015-10-07 15:28 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] " Jungseok Lee
2015-10-08 10:25 ` Pratyush Anand
2015-10-08 14:32 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-08 16:51 ` Pratyush Anand
2015-10-07 15:28 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: Expand the stack trace feature to support " Jungseok Lee
2015-10-09 14:24 ` James Morse
2015-10-12 14:53 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-12 16:34 ` James Morse
2015-10-12 22:13 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-13 11:00 ` James Morse
2015-10-13 15:00 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-14 12:12 ` Jungseok Lee [this message]
2015-10-15 15:59 ` James Morse
2015-10-16 13:01 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-16 16:06 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-17 13:38 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-19 16:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-20 13:08 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-21 15:14 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-14 7:13 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-14 12:24 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-14 12:55 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-15 4:19 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-15 13:39 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-19 6:47 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-20 13:19 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-15 14:24 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-10-15 16:01 ` James Morse
2015-10-16 13:02 ` Jungseok Lee
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=B6AB90B9-3AA9-413A-B357-137710E89C7C@gmail.com \
--to=jungseoklee85@gmail.com \
--cc=barami97@gmail.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®