On 20.03.23 13:25, Huang, Kai wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 17:34 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> The mtrr_value[] array is a static variable, which is used only in a
>> few configurations. Consuming 6kB is ridiculous for this case,
>> especially as the array doesn't need to be that large and it can easily
>> be allocated dynamically.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/mtrr.c | 3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/mtrr.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/mtrr.c
>> index 0c83990501f5..50cd2287b6e1 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/mtrr.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/mtrr.c
>> @@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ struct mtrr_value {
>>   	unsigned long	lsize;
>>   };
>>   
>> -static struct mtrr_value mtrr_value[MTRR_MAX_VAR_RANGES];
>> +static struct mtrr_value *mtrr_value;
>>   
>>   static int mtrr_save(void)
>>   {
>> @@ -750,6 +750,7 @@ static int __init mtrr_init_finialize(void)
>>   	 * TBD: is there any system with such CPU which supports
>>   	 * suspend/resume? If no, we should remove the code.
>>   	 */
>> +	mtrr_value = kcalloc(num_var_ranges, sizeof(*mtrr_value), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Theoretically dynamic allocation can fail, although it should not happen as this
> happens during kernel boot and the size is small.  Maybe a WARN()?

Fine with me.


Juergen