Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu_ida: Use _irqsave() instead of local_irq_save() +
 spin_lock
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        Nicholas Bellinger <nab@linux-iscsi.org>,
        Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
References: <20180504153218.7301-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20180504162216.ae91654b68eddafe38df7d7f@linux-foundation.org>
 <20180505035154.GB20495@bombadil.infradead.org>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <60a88d5f-95eb-ba45-e59c-5a822a3d370b@kernel.dk>
Date:   Sat, 5 May 2018 08:10:20 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180505035154.GB20495@bombadil.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 5/4/18 9:51 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 04:22:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> I'm feeling a bit hostile toward lib/percpu_ida.c in general ;) It has
>> very few users and seems rather complicated (what's with that
>> schedule() in percpu_ida_alloc?).  I'm suspecting and hoping that if
>> someone can figure out what the requirements were, this could all be
>> zapped and reimplemented using something else which we already have.
> 
> Note that I have no code in percpu_ida ... it's quite different from
> the regular IDA.  But I have noticed the stunning similarity between the
> percpu_ida and the code in lib/sbitmap.c.  I have no idea which one is
> better, but they're essentially doing the same thing.

Not sure where you see that "stunning similarity"? The sbitmap code is
basically the blk-mq tagging sparse bitmaps, abstracted into a generally
usable form. The percpu_ida design works fine for lower utilization, but
it fell apart for the tagging use case where we can easily run at full
utilization. percpu_ida has percpu caches, sbitmap gets away with just
percpu hints. These caches are why it doesn't work well for > 50%
utilization. sbitmap also supports shallow operations, and online
resizing. Outside of the sharing the same basic functionality of "give
me some free ID", I really don't see a lot of similarities. In terms of
functionality, yes, I don't think it would be hard to get rid of
percpu_ida and just replace it with sbitmap. Probably a worthwhile
pursuit.

-- 
Jens Axboe