Re: [PATCH 0/3] smp: reduce stack requirements forsmp_call_function_mask
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Sat Sep 06 2008 - 09:30:30 EST
* Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Cleanup cpumask_t usages in smp_call_function_mask function chain
> to prevent stack overflow problem when NR_CPUS=4096.
>
> * Reduce the number of passed cpumask_t variables in the following
> call chain for x86_64:
>
> smp_call_function_mask -->
> arch_send_call_function_ipi->
> smp_ops.send_call_func_ipi -->
> genapic->send_IPI_mask
>
> Since the smp_call_function_mask() is an EXPORTED function, we
> cannot change it's calling interface for a patch to 2.6.27.
>
> The smp_ops.send_call_func_ipi interface is internal only and
> has two arch provided functions:
>
> arch/x86/kernel/smp.c: .send_call_func_ipi = native_send_call_func_ipi
> arch/x86/xen/smp.c: .send_call_func_ipi = xen_smp_send_call_function_ipi
> arch/x86/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c: (uses native_send_call_func_ipi)
>
> Therefore modifying the internal interface to use a cpumask_t pointer
> is straight-forward.
>
> The changes to genapic are much more extensive and are affected by the
> recent additions of the x2apic modes, so they will be done for 2.6.28 only.
>
> Based on 2.6.27-rc5-git6.
>
> Applies to linux-2.6.tip/master (with FUZZ).
applied to tip/cpus4096, thanks Mike.
I'm still wondering whether we should get rid of non-reference based
cpumask_t altogether ...
Did you have a chance to look at the ftrace/stacktrace tracer in latest
tip/master, which will show the maximum stack footprint that can occur?
Also, i've applied the patch below as well to restore MAXSMP in a muted
form - with big warning signs added as well.
Ingo
-------------->