[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140311204826.GA30105@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:48:28 +0100
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>,
Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu_ida: Handle out-of-tags gracefully
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@...hat.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists