On 12/8/20 4:16 PM, Ganesh wrote:
>
> On 12/8/20 4:01 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Ganesh Goudar <ganes...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/paca.h
>>> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/paca.h
>>> index 9454d29ff4b4..4769954efa7d 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/paca.h
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/paca.h
>>> @@ -273,6 +274,17 @@ struct paca_struct {
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_MMIOWB
>>> struct mmiowb_state mmiowb_state;
>>> #endif
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64
>>> + int mce_nest_count;
>>> + struct machine_check_event mce_event[MAX_MC_EVT];
>>> + /* Queue for delayed MCE events. */
>>> + int mce_queue_count;
>>> + struct machine_check_event mce_event_queue[MAX_MC_EVT];
>>> +
>>> + /* Queue for delayed MCE UE events. */
>>> + int mce_ue_count;
>>> + struct machine_check_event mce_ue_event_queue[MAX_MC_EVT];
>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 */
>>> } ____cacheline_aligned;
>> How much does this expand the paca by?
>
> Size of paca is 4480 bytes, these add up another 2160 bytes, so expands
> it by 48%.
>
Should we dynamically allocate the array sizes early as similar to that
of paca->mce_faulty_slbs so that we don't bump up paca size ?
Thanks,
-Mahesh.
