From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S935910AbcCQUXq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:23:46 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:35535 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932595AbcCQUXn (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:23:43 -0400
Subject: Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
References: <CADJHv_ty-8OsX3YKKYg4vtzcL-Hmag3rtjObbcgFLE-KLt1M7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1603161624280.3978@nanos>
 <CADJHv_s1cM=NxkCSHEm_1MctDYJUkDtutLB=aFtx9rB4a3FZdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160317095220.GO6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1603171119060.3978@nanos>
 <20160317102633.GR6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1603171223480.3978@nanos>
 <20160317115120.GT6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1603171258260.3978@nanos> <56EADE5F.7000601@kernel.dk>
 <56EAF6CC.7070108@kernel.dk> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1603172113470.3978@nanos>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Xiong Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@suse.com>
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <56EB124C.2040808@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:23:40 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1603172113470.3978@nanos>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 03/17/2016 01:20 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 03/17/2016 09:42 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 03/17/2016 05:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>> But we have to clarify and document whether holes in
>>>>>> cpu_possible_mask are not
>>>>>> allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the general rule is that cpumasks can have holes, and exempting one
>>>>> just muddles the water.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore I'd call the code just plain broken.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.
>>>>
>>>> That macro is not really helping the readability of the code at all. So a
>>>> simple for_each_possible_cpu() loop would have avoided that wreckage.
>>>
>>> Does the attached work? The rest of blk-mq should deal with holes just
>
> Bah. Attachements ...

You'll live. Let's face it, all mailers suck in one way or another.

>>> fine, we found some of those issues on sparc. Not sure why this one
>>> slipped through the cracks.
>>
>> This might be better, we need to start at -1 to not miss the first one...
>> Still untested.
>
>> +static inline struct blk_mq_ctx *next_ctx(struct request_queue *q, int *i)
>> +{
>> +	do {
>> +		(*i)++;
>> +		if (*i < q->nr_queues) {
>> +			if (cpu_possible(*i))
>> +				return per_cpu_ptr(q->queue_ctx, *i);
>> +			continue;
>> +		}
>> +		break;
>> +	} while (1);
>> +
>> +	return NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define queue_for_each_ctx(q, ctx, i)					\
>> +	for ((i) = -1; (ctx = next_ctx((q), &(i))) != NULL;)
>> +
>
> What's wrong with
>
>          for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>         		ctx = per_cpu_ptr(q->queue_ctx, cpu);
>
> 		....
> 	}
>
> instead of hiding it behind an incomprehensible macro mess?

We might not have mapped all of them.

-- 
Jens Axboe