Hi,
On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 13:31 +0800, Kexy Biscuit wrote:
On 3/19/2024 1:12 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi Hucai,
On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 22:21 +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
Hi, SuperH maintainers,
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 8:59 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can this patch be merged? This is the only one still unmerged in the
On Thu, 2022-07-14 at 16:41 +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
When CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK and CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS is selected,
cpu_max_bits_warn() generates a runtime warning similar as below while
we show /proc/cpuinfo. Fix this by using nr_cpu_ids (the runtime limit)
instead of NR_CPUS to iterate CPUs.
[ 3.052463] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 3.059679] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 1 at include/linux/cpumask.h:108 show_cpuinfo+0x5e8/0x5f0
[ 3.070072] Modules linked in: efivarfs autofs4
[ 3.076257] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: systemd Not tainted 5.19-rc5+ #1052
[ 3.099465] Stack : 9000000100157b08 9000000000f18530 9000000000cf846c 9000000100154000
[ 3.109127] 9000000100157a50 0000000000000000 9000000100157a58 9000000000ef7430
[ 3.118774] 90000001001578e8 0000000000000040 0000000000000020 ffffffffffffffff
[ 3.128412] 0000000000aaaaaa 1ab25f00eec96a37 900000010021de80 900000000101c890
[ 3.138056] 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000aaaaaa
[ 3.147711] ffff8000339dc220 0000000000000001 0000000006ab4000 0000000000000000
[ 3.157364] 900000000101c998 0000000000000004 9000000000ef7430 0000000000000000
[ 3.167012] 0000000000000009 000000000000006c 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
[ 3.176641] 9000000000d3de08 9000000001639390 90000000002086d8 00007ffff0080286
[ 3.186260] 00000000000000b0 0000000000000004 0000000000000000 0000000000071c1c
[ 3.195868] ...
[ 3.199917] Call Trace:
[ 3.203941] [<90000000002086d8>] show_stack+0x38/0x14c
[ 3.210666] [<9000000000cf846c>] dump_stack_lvl+0x60/0x88
[ 3.217625] [<900000000023d268>] __warn+0xd0/0x100
[ 3.223958] [<9000000000cf3c90>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x7c/0xcc
[ 3.231150] [<9000000000210220>] show_cpuinfo+0x5e8/0x5f0
[ 3.238080] [<90000000004f578c>] seq_read_iter+0x354/0x4b4
[ 3.245098] [<90000000004c2e90>] new_sync_read+0x17c/0x1c4
[ 3.252114] [<90000000004c5174>] vfs_read+0x138/0x1d0
[ 3.258694] [<90000000004c55f8>] ksys_read+0x70/0x100
[ 3.265265] [<9000000000cfde9c>] do_syscall+0x7c/0x94
[ 3.271820] [<9000000000202fe4>] handle_syscall+0xc4/0x160
[ 3.281824] ---[ end trace 8b484262b4b8c24c ]---
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/sh/kernel/cpu/proc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/sh/kernel/cpu/proc.c b/arch/sh/kernel/cpu/proc.c
index a306bcd6b341..5f6d0e827bae 100644
--- a/arch/sh/kernel/cpu/proc.c
+++ b/arch/sh/kernel/cpu/proc.c
@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
static void *c_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
{
- return *pos < NR_CPUS ? cpu_data + *pos : NULL;
+ return *pos < nr_cpu_ids ? cpu_data + *pos : NULL;
}
static void *c_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *pos)
{
I build-tested the patch and also booted the patched kernel successfully
on my SH-7785LCR board.
Showing the contents of /proc/cpuinfo works fine, too:
root@tirpitz:~> cat /proc/cpuinfo
machine : SH7785LCR
processor : 0
cpu family : sh4a
cpu type : SH7785
cut : 7.x
cpu flags : fpu perfctr llsc
cache type : split (harvard)
icache size : 32KiB (4-way)
dcache size : 32KiB (4-way)
address sizes : 32 bits physical
bogomips : 599.99
root@tirpitz:~>
Tested-by: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I am not sure yet whether the change is also correct as I don't know whether
it's possible to change the number of CPUs at runtime on SuperH.
whole series.
Thanks for the reminder. I will pick it up for 6.10.
Got sick this week, so I can't pick up anymore patches for 6.9 and will just
send Linus a PR later this week.
Adrian
Gentle ping on this, can we get this patch merged into 6.12?
Thanks a lot for the reminder. Since the merge window is about to close, I'll
pick this up for 6.13 as it hasn't been reviewed yet from what I can see.
I will definitely pick it up for 6.13 and I'm sorry for the very long delay.
However, when this patch got posted back then, I wasn't a kernel maintainer yet.
Adrian