From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: John Dorminy <jdorminy@redhat.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
dm-devel@redhat.com, Zhang Xiaoxu <zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: block: Fix a WRITE SAME BUG_ON
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:14:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190128221441.GA24102@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMeeMh_=UVGwo-=9WtBXRmiHTXnLAswqis97bM-aiuwnzPU0QQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Jan 26 2019 at 6:17am -0500,
John Dorminy <jdorminy@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi. I have read a bit of DM code and spent an hour reviewing this... I
> didn't get to the point of knowing what the right fix for the problem
> is, and I may have a wrong understanding, but I have two thoughts
> about the patch:
>
> I don't think this is the right solution for two reasons:
>
> In the first place, if it's an LVM-only issue, we should fix it only
> for device-mapper devices. If this is the right way to fix it,
> possibly the way to do that would be to change DM calls to
> blk_queue_max_write_same_sectors() to only set the max sectors to more
> than 0 if and only if the logical block sizes match.
There is no way this is specific to lvm (or DM). It may _seem_ that way
because lvm/dm are in the business of creating stacked devices --
whereby exposing users to blk_stack_limits().
I'll have a closer look at this issue, hopefully tomorrow, but Zhang
Xiaoxu's proposed fix looks bogus to me. Not disputing there is an
issue, just feels like a different fix is needed.
Mike
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: John Dorminy <jdorminy@redhat.com>
Cc: Zhang Xiaoxu <zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>,
axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
dm-devel@redhat.com, Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: block: Fix a WRITE SAME BUG_ON
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:14:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190128221441.GA24102@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMeeMh_=UVGwo-=9WtBXRmiHTXnLAswqis97bM-aiuwnzPU0QQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Jan 26 2019 at 6:17am -0500,
John Dorminy <jdorminy@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi. I have read a bit of DM code and spent an hour reviewing this... I
> didn't get to the point of knowing what the right fix for the problem
> is, and I may have a wrong understanding, but I have two thoughts
> about the patch:
>
> I don't think this is the right solution for two reasons:
>
> In the first place, if it's an LVM-only issue, we should fix it only
> for device-mapper devices. If this is the right way to fix it,
> possibly the way to do that would be to change DM calls to
> blk_queue_max_write_same_sectors() to only set the max sectors to more
> than 0 if and only if the logical block sizes match.
There is no way this is specific to lvm (or DM). It may _seem_ that way
because lvm/dm are in the business of creating stacked devices --
whereby exposing users to blk_stack_limits().
I'll have a closer look at this issue, hopefully tomorrow, but Zhang
Xiaoxu's proposed fix looks bogus to me. Not disputing there is an
issue, just feels like a different fix is needed.
Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-28 22:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-25 2:11 [v2] block: Fix a WRITE SAME BUG_ON Zhang Xiaoxu
2019-01-26 11:17 ` John Dorminy
2019-01-26 11:17 ` [dm-devel] " John Dorminy
2019-01-28 5:48 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-01-28 5:48 ` [dm-devel] " zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-01-28 22:14 ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2019-01-28 22:14 ` Mike Snitzer
2019-01-29 4:54 ` Martin K. Petersen
2019-01-29 4:54 ` Martin K. Petersen
2019-01-29 8:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-01-29 8:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-01-30 6:50 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-01-30 6:50 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-01-30 14:08 ` John Dorminy
2019-01-30 14:08 ` John Dorminy
2019-01-31 0:58 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-01-31 0:58 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-01-31 2:23 ` Martin K. Petersen
2019-01-31 2:23 ` Martin K. Petersen
2019-01-31 10:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-01-31 10:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-01-31 19:41 ` John Dorminy
2019-01-31 19:41 ` John Dorminy
2019-02-01 7:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-02-01 7:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-02-01 14:09 ` John Dorminy
2019-02-01 14:09 ` John Dorminy
2019-02-01 16:03 ` Heinz Mauelshagen
2019-02-01 16:03 ` [dm-devel] " Heinz Mauelshagen
2019-02-01 16:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-02-01 16:18 ` [dm-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2019-02-12 3:11 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-02-12 3:11 ` [dm-devel] " zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-02-14 2:31 ` Martin K. Petersen
2019-02-14 2:31 ` [dm-devel] " Martin K. Petersen
2019-02-14 9:36 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-02-14 9:36 ` [dm-devel] " zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-02-18 14:10 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-02-18 14:10 ` [dm-devel] " zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-02-19 23:10 ` Martin K. Petersen
2019-02-19 23:10 ` [dm-devel] " Martin K. Petersen
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=20190128221441.GA24102@redhat.com \
--to=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=jdorminy@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.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.