Test/enable CPU_MASK_OFFSTACK
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 14
- Forks
- 0
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
@srikard points out that we never select CPU_MASK_OFFSTACK, even for NR_CPUS=8192.
This probably means a NR_CPUS=8192 config would have issues with stack usage, although possibly we get away with it due to having relatively large THREAD_SHIFT.
We also have a few usages of zalloc_cpumask_var() which lack error checking. With CPU_MASK_OFFSTACK=y they could potentially fail.
We should test that CPU_MASK_OFFSTACK works, and then select it for NR_CPUs above some threshold. Not clear what the threshold should be, would need some performance/memory-usage analysis.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by testing a configuration with NR_CPUS=8192 and CPU_MASK_OFFSTACK enabled, then inspect the zalloc_cpumask_var() usages mentioned in the issue. Done means confirming whether CPU_MASK_OFFSTACK works, identifying a threshold through performance and memory-use analysis, and addressing potential allocation failures.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- linux
- Domain
- operating-systems
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100