Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756090AbcCQUbc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:31:32 -0400
Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:33911 "EHLO
	Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754230AbcCQUbb (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:31:31 -0400
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:30:02 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
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>
Subject: Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device
In-Reply-To: <56EB124C.2040808@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1603172128280.3978@nanos>
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> <56EB124C.2040808@kernel.dk>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1042
Lines: 44

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/17/2016 01:20 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > 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.

blk_mq_init_cpu_queues() tells a different story and q->queue_ctx is a per_cpu
allocation.

Thanks,

	tglx