From: willy@linux.intel.com (Matthew Wilcox)
Subject: Alignment Issue with Direct IO to NVMe Drive
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:05:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121127170509.GA5100@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50B4AD8A.7020208@kernel.dk>
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012@01:09:46PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2012-11-27 01:35, Laine Walker-Avina wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We are experiencing an issue with doing direct IO to a NVMe device I'm
> > helping to develop. Every so often, the physical address given by
> > sg_dma_address() is aligned to 0x800 instead of 0x1000 as specified by
> > blk_queue_dma_alignement(queue, 4095) when the queue is initialized.
FYI, this is a modification to the driver that Laine has made; presumably
for a limitation of the prototype hardware he's working with. The NVMe
spec requires the device to be able to do I/Os to 4 byte boundaries.
Laine, when this occurs, what is the alignment of 'offset' in the sg
entry you're looking at? If userspace is passing in an unaligned address,
I don't think there's anything we do to try to align it.
> > The request is also split over multiple segments to make up for the
> > missing space (eg: for a 4k IO it's split into two segments 2k in
> > size, and for an 8k IO it's split into 3 segments--2k,4k,2k). Our
> > design requires the physical segments given to the device be aligned
> > to 4k boundaries and be multiples of 4k in size. When not doing direct
> > IO the physical addresses appear to always be 4k aligned as expected.
> > One possible issue is the kernel we're primarily testing against is
> > 2.6.32-220 from CentOS, but we have observed similar behavior from a
> > vanilla 3.3 kernel as well. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> I'm assuming you set the hardware sector size to 4k as well?
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Laine Walker-Avina <lwalkera@ieee.org>,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
lwalkera@micron.com
Subject: Re: Alignment Issue with Direct IO to NVMe Drive
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:05:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121127170509.GA5100@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50B4AD8A.7020208@kernel.dk>
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 01:09:46PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2012-11-27 01:35, Laine Walker-Avina wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We are experiencing an issue with doing direct IO to a NVMe device I'm
> > helping to develop. Every so often, the physical address given by
> > sg_dma_address() is aligned to 0x800 instead of 0x1000 as specified by
> > blk_queue_dma_alignement(queue, 4095) when the queue is initialized.
FYI, this is a modification to the driver that Laine has made; presumably
for a limitation of the prototype hardware he's working with. The NVMe
spec requires the device to be able to do I/Os to 4 byte boundaries.
Laine, when this occurs, what is the alignment of 'offset' in the sg
entry you're looking at? If userspace is passing in an unaligned address,
I don't think there's anything we do to try to align it.
> > The request is also split over multiple segments to make up for the
> > missing space (eg: for a 4k IO it's split into two segments 2k in
> > size, and for an 8k IO it's split into 3 segments--2k,4k,2k). Our
> > design requires the physical segments given to the device be aligned
> > to 4k boundaries and be multiples of 4k in size. When not doing direct
> > IO the physical addresses appear to always be 4k aligned as expected.
> > One possible issue is the kernel we're primarily testing against is
> > 2.6.32-220 from CentOS, but we have observed similar behavior from a
> > vanilla 3.3 kernel as well. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> I'm assuming you set the hardware sector size to 4k as well?
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-27 17:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-27 0:35 Alignment Issue with Direct IO to NVMe Drive Laine Walker-Avina
2012-11-27 0:35 ` Laine Walker-Avina
2012-11-27 12:09 ` Jens Axboe
2012-11-27 12:09 ` Jens Axboe
2012-11-27 17:05 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2012-11-27 17:05 ` Matthew Wilcox
2012-11-27 17:47 ` Laine Walker-Avina
2012-11-27 17:47 ` Laine Walker-Avina
2012-11-27 21:39 ` Matthew Wilcox
2012-11-27 21:39 ` Matthew Wilcox
2012-11-27 22:25 ` Laine Walker-Avina
2012-11-27 22:25 ` Laine Walker-Avina
2012-11-27 17:43 ` Laine Walker-Avina
2012-11-27 17:43 ` Laine Walker-Avina
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121127170509.GA5100@linux.intel.com \
--to=willy@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.