On 12/02/2020 11:30, Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose wrote:

quoted

+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...

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel