Re: [PATCH] percpu_ida: Handle out-of-tags gracefully

[Alexander Gordeev]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 07:10:18PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > I assume the BUG() above hits? If so, I am failing to understand how
> > the code gets here. Mind elaborate?
> 
> Hello Alexander,
> 
> You are correct, the BUG() mentioned in the call stack in the
> description of this patch does indeed correspond with the BUG()
> statement in the above code. That BUG() was encountered while testing
> the scsi-mq patch series with a workload with a large queue depth. I
> think the fact that I hit that BUG() statement means that my workload
> was queueing requests faster than these were processed by the SCSI LLD
> and hence that percpu_ida_alloc() ran out of tags.

Function steal_tags() is entered with disabled interrupts and
pool->lock taken. Then the 'for' cycle enters/loops while 'cpus_have_tags'
is not zero. Which means we can not end up with no set bits at all -
and that is the reason why BUG() is (legitimately) placed there.

> Bart.

-- 
Regards,
Alexander Gordeev
agordeev@xxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/