From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v3 1/4] idr: Percpu ida
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:23:32 -0700
Message-ID: <20130828132332.6d5263ee9622235ae0fcc615@linux-foundation.org>
References: <1376694549-20609-1-git-send-email-nab@linux-iscsi.org>
	<1376694549-20609-2-git-send-email-nab@linux-iscsi.org>
	<20130820143157.f91bf59d16352989b54e431e@linux-foundation.org>
	<20130828195317.GE8032@kmo-pixel>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>,
	target-devel <target-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lf-virt <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, Asias He <asias@redhat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kmo@daterainc.com>
Return-path: <target-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130828195317.GE8032@kmo-pixel>
Sender: target-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:53:17 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo@daterainc.com> wrote:

> > > +	while (1) {
> > > +		spin_lock(&pool->lock);
> > > +
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * prepare_to_wait() must come before steal_tags(), in case
> > > +		 * percpu_ida_free() on another cpu flips a bit in
> > > +		 * cpus_have_tags
> > > +		 *
> > > +		 * global lock held and irqs disabled, don't need percpu lock
> > > +		 */
> > > +		prepare_to_wait(&pool->wait, &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > > +
> > > +		if (!tags->nr_free)
> > > +			alloc_global_tags(pool, tags);
> > > +		if (!tags->nr_free)
> > > +			steal_tags(pool, tags);
> > > +
> > > +		if (tags->nr_free) {
> > > +			tag = tags->freelist[--tags->nr_free];
> > > +			if (tags->nr_free)
> > > +				set_bit(smp_processor_id(),
> > > +					pool->cpus_have_tags);
> > > +		}
> > > +
> > > +		spin_unlock(&pool->lock);
> > > +		local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > +
> > > +		if (tag >= 0 || !(gfp & __GFP_WAIT))
> > > +			break;
> > > +
> > > +		schedule();
> > > +
> > > +		local_irq_save(flags);
> > > +		tags = this_cpu_ptr(pool->tag_cpu);
> > > +	}
> > 
> > What guarantees that this wait will terminate?
> 
> It seems fairly clear to me from the break statement a couple lines up;
> if we were passed __GFP_WAIT we terminate iff we succesfully allocated a
> tag. If we weren't passed __GFP_WAIT we never actually sleep.

OK ;)  Let me rephrase.  What guarantees that a tag will become available?

If what we have here is an open-coded __GFP_NOFAIL then that is
potentially problematic.