| Message ID | 20190418193925.9361-1-urezki@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/1] lib/test_vmalloc: do not create cpumask_t variable on stack | expand |
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 21:39:25 +0200 "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com> wrote: > On my "Intel(R) Xeon(R) W-2135 CPU @ 3.70GHz" system(12 CPUs) > i get the warning from the compiler about frame size: > > <snip> > warning: the frame size of 1096 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes > [-Wframe-larger-than=] > <snip> > > the size of cpumask_t depends on number of CPUs, therefore just > make use of cpumask_of() in set_cpus_allowed_ptr() as a second > argument. > > ... L > --- a/lib/test_vmalloc.c > +++ b/lib/test_vmalloc.c > @@ -383,14 +383,14 @@ static void shuffle_array(int *arr, int n) > static int test_func(void *private) > { > struct test_driver *t = private; > - cpumask_t newmask = CPU_MASK_NONE; > int random_array[ARRAY_SIZE(test_case_array)]; > int index, i, j, ret; > ktime_t kt; > u64 delta; > > - cpumask_set_cpu(t->cpu, &newmask); > - set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, &newmask); > + ret = set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(t->cpu)); > + if (ret < 0) > + pr_err("Failed to set affinity to %d CPU\n", t->cpu); > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_case_array); i++) > random_array[i] = i; lgtm. While we're in there... From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Subject: lib/test_vmalloc.c:test_func(): eliminate local `ret' Local 'ret' is unneeded and was poorly named: the variable `ret' generally means the "the value which this function will return". Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com> Cc: Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> --- lib/test_vmalloc.c | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) --- a/lib/test_vmalloc.c~a +++ a/lib/test_vmalloc.c @@ -384,12 +384,11 @@ static int test_func(void *private) { struct test_driver *t = private; int random_array[ARRAY_SIZE(test_case_array)]; - int index, i, j, ret; + int index, i, j; ktime_t kt; u64 delta; - ret = set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(t->cpu)); - if (ret < 0) + if (set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(t->cpu)) < 0) pr_err("Failed to set affinity to %d CPU\n", t->cpu); for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_case_array); i++) @@ -415,8 +414,7 @@ static int test_func(void *private) kt = ktime_get(); for (j = 0; j < test_repeat_count; j++) { - ret = test_case_array[index].test_func(); - if (!ret) + if (!test_case_array[index].test_func()) per_cpu_test_data[t->cpu][index].test_passed++; else per_cpu_test_data[t->cpu][index].test_failed++;
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:10:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 21:39:25 +0200 "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On my "Intel(R) Xeon(R) W-2135 CPU @ 3.70GHz" system(12 CPUs) > > i get the warning from the compiler about frame size: > > > > <snip> > > warning: the frame size of 1096 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes > > [-Wframe-larger-than=] > > <snip> > > > > the size of cpumask_t depends on number of CPUs, therefore just > > make use of cpumask_of() in set_cpus_allowed_ptr() as a second > > argument. > > > > ... > L > > --- a/lib/test_vmalloc.c > > +++ b/lib/test_vmalloc.c > > @@ -383,14 +383,14 @@ static void shuffle_array(int *arr, int n) > > static int test_func(void *private) > > { > > struct test_driver *t = private; > > - cpumask_t newmask = CPU_MASK_NONE; > > int random_array[ARRAY_SIZE(test_case_array)]; > > int index, i, j, ret; > > ktime_t kt; > > u64 delta; > > > > - cpumask_set_cpu(t->cpu, &newmask); > > - set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, &newmask); > > + ret = set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(t->cpu)); > > + if (ret < 0) > > + pr_err("Failed to set affinity to %d CPU\n", t->cpu); > > > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_case_array); i++) > > random_array[i] = i; > > lgtm. > > While we're in there... > > > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Subject: lib/test_vmalloc.c:test_func(): eliminate local `ret' > > Local 'ret' is unneeded and was poorly named: the variable `ret' generally > means the "the value which this function will return". > > Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> > Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> > Cc: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com> > Cc: Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com> > Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> > Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > --- > > lib/test_vmalloc.c | 8 +++----- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > --- a/lib/test_vmalloc.c~a > +++ a/lib/test_vmalloc.c > @@ -384,12 +384,11 @@ static int test_func(void *private) > { > struct test_driver *t = private; > int random_array[ARRAY_SIZE(test_case_array)]; > - int index, i, j, ret; > + int index, i, j; > ktime_t kt; > u64 delta; > > - ret = set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(t->cpu)); > - if (ret < 0) > + if (set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(t->cpu)) < 0) > pr_err("Failed to set affinity to %d CPU\n", t->cpu); > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_case_array); i++) > @@ -415,8 +414,7 @@ static int test_func(void *private) > > kt = ktime_get(); > for (j = 0; j < test_repeat_count; j++) { > - ret = test_case_array[index].test_func(); > - if (!ret) > + if (!test_case_array[index].test_func()) > per_cpu_test_data[t->cpu][index].test_passed++; > else > per_cpu_test_data[t->cpu][index].test_failed++; > _ > Agree with your slight update. Thank you! -- Vlad Rezki
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 09:39:25PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote: > On my "Intel(R) Xeon(R) W-2135 CPU @ 3.70GHz" system(12 CPUs) > i get the warning from the compiler about frame size: > > <snip> > warning: the frame size of 1096 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes > [-Wframe-larger-than=] > <snip> > > the size of cpumask_t depends on number of CPUs, therefore just > make use of cpumask_of() in set_cpus_allowed_ptr() as a second > argument. > > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> Thanks!
diff --git a/lib/test_vmalloc.c b/lib/test_vmalloc.c index 83cdcaa82bf6..f832b095afba 100644 --- a/lib/test_vmalloc.c +++ b/lib/test_vmalloc.c @@ -383,14 +383,14 @@ static void shuffle_array(int *arr, int n) static int test_func(void *private) { struct test_driver *t = private; - cpumask_t newmask = CPU_MASK_NONE; int random_array[ARRAY_SIZE(test_case_array)]; int index, i, j, ret; ktime_t kt; u64 delta; - cpumask_set_cpu(t->cpu, &newmask); - set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, &newmask); + ret = set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(t->cpu)); + if (ret < 0) + pr_err("Failed to set affinity to %d CPU\n", t->cpu); for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_case_array); i++) random_array[i] = i;
On my "Intel(R) Xeon(R) W-2135 CPU @ 3.70GHz" system(12 CPUs) i get the warning from the compiler about frame size: <snip> warning: the frame size of 1096 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=] <snip> the size of cpumask_t depends on number of CPUs, therefore just make use of cpumask_of() in set_cpus_allowed_ptr() as a second argument. Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com> --- lib/test_vmalloc.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)