Re: [PATCH-v2 1/3] percpu_ida: Make percpu_ida_alloc + callersaccept task state bitmask

From: Nicholas A. Bellinger
Date: Wed Jan 22 2014 - 14:51:31 EST

Hi Peter,

Does this satisfy your questions..?

Do you have any more concerns about TASK_RUNNING + prepare_to_wait()
usage in percpu_ida_alloc() that need to be addressed before I can drop
this series into target-pending/for-next to address the original bug..?

Thank you,


On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 14:18 -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:34:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:44:44AM +0000, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > From: Kent Overstreet <kmo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This patch changes percpu_ida_alloc() + callers to accept task state
> > > bitmask for prepare_to_wait() for code like target/iscsi that needs
> > > it for interruptible sleep, that is provided in a subsequent patch.
> > >
> > > It now expects TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE when the caller is able to sleep
> > > waiting for a new tag, or TASK_RUNNING when the caller cannot sleep,
> > > and is forced to return a negative value when no tags are available.
> > >
> > > v2 changes:
> > > - Include blk-mq + tcm_fc + vhost/scsi + target/iscsi changes
> > > - Drop signal_pending_state() call
> >
> > Urgh, you made me look at percpu_ida... steal_tags() does a
> > for_each_cpus() with IRQs disabled. This mean you'll disable IRQs for
> > multiple ticks on SGI class hardware. That is a _very_ long time indeed.
> It's not that bad in practice - the looping is limited by the number of other
> CPUs that actually have tags on their freelists - i.e. the CPUs that have
> recently been using that block device or whatever the percpu_ida is for. And we
> loop while cpu_have_tags is greater than some threshold (there's another debate
> about that) - the intention is not to steal tags unless too many other CPUs have
> tags on their local freelists.
> That said, for huge SGI class hardware I think you'd want the freelists to not
> be percpu, but rather be per core or something - that's probably a reasonable
> optimization for most hardware anyways.
> > Then there's alloc_global_tags() vs alloc_local_tags(), one gets an
> > actual tag, while the other only moves tags about -- semantic mismatch.
> Yeah, kind of. It is doing allocation, but not the same sort of allocation.
> > I do not get the comment near prepare to wait -- why does it matter if
> > percpu_ida_free() flips a cpus_have_tags bit?
> Did I write that comment? It is a crappy comment...
> Ok, in userspace we'd be using condition variables here, but this is the kernel
> so we need to carefully order putting ourselves on a waitlist, and checking the
> condition that determines whether we wait, and on the wakeup end changing things
> that affect that condition and doing the wakeup. steal_tags() is checking the
> condition that goes with the prepare_to_wait(), that's all.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at