All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, martin.petersen@oracle.com, jdorminy@redhat.com,
	bjohnsto@redhat.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2] block: use gcd() to fix chunk_sectors limit stacking
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 21:03:43 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201204020343.GA32150@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201204011243.GB661914@T590>

On Thu, Dec 03 2020 at  8:12pm -0500,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:33:59AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02 2020 at 10:26pm -0500,
> > Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 11:07:09AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > commit 22ada802ede8 ("block: use lcm_not_zero() when stacking
> > > > chunk_sectors") broke chunk_sectors limit stacking. chunk_sectors must
> > > > reflect the most limited of all devices in the IO stack.
> > > > 
> > > > Otherwise malformed IO may result. E.g.: prior to this fix,
> > > > ->chunk_sectors = lcm_not_zero(8, 128) would result in
> > > > blk_max_size_offset() splitting IO at 128 sectors rather than the
> > > > required more restrictive 8 sectors.
> > > 
> > > What is the user-visible result of splitting IO at 128 sectors?
> > 
> > The VDO dm target fails because it requires IO it receives to be split
> > as it advertised (8 sectors).
> 
> OK, looks VDO's chunk_sector limit is one hard constraint, even though it
> is one DM device, so I guess you are talking about DM over VDO?
> 
> Another reason should be that VDO doesn't use blk_queue_split(), otherwise it
> won't be a trouble, right?
> 
> Frankly speaking, if the stacking driver/device has its own hard queue limit
> like normal hardware drive, the driver should be responsible for the splitting.

DM core does the splitting for VDO (just like any other DM target).
In 5.9 I updated DM to use chunk_sectors, use blk_stack_limits()
stacking of it, and also use blk_max_size_offset().

But all that block core code has shown itself to be too rigid for DM.  I
tried to force the issue by stacking DM targets' ti->max_io_len with
chunk_sectors.  But really I'd need to be able to pass in the per-target
max_io_len to blk_max_size_offset() to salvage using it.

Stacking chunk_sectors seems ill-conceived.  One size-fits-all splitting
is too rigid.

> > > I understand it isn't related with correctness, because the underlying
> > > queue can split by its own chunk_sectors limit further. So is the issue
> > > too many further-splitting on queue with chunk_sectors 8? then CPU
> > > utilization is increased? Or other issue?
> > 
> > No, this is all about correctness.
> > 
> > Seems you're confining the definition of the possible stacking so that
> > the top-level device isn't allowed to have its own hard requirements on
> 
> I just don't know this story, thanks for your clarification.
> 
> As I mentioned above, if the stacking driver has its own hard queue
> limit, it should be the driver's responsibility to respect it via
> blk_queue_split() or whatever.

Again, DM does its own splitting... that aspect of it isn't an issue.
The problem is the basis for splitting cannot be the stacked up
chunk_sectors.

Mike

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
	jdorminy@redhat.com, bjohnsto@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: use gcd() to fix chunk_sectors limit stacking
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 21:03:43 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201204020343.GA32150@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201204011243.GB661914@T590>

On Thu, Dec 03 2020 at  8:12pm -0500,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:33:59AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02 2020 at 10:26pm -0500,
> > Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 11:07:09AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > commit 22ada802ede8 ("block: use lcm_not_zero() when stacking
> > > > chunk_sectors") broke chunk_sectors limit stacking. chunk_sectors must
> > > > reflect the most limited of all devices in the IO stack.
> > > > 
> > > > Otherwise malformed IO may result. E.g.: prior to this fix,
> > > > ->chunk_sectors = lcm_not_zero(8, 128) would result in
> > > > blk_max_size_offset() splitting IO at 128 sectors rather than the
> > > > required more restrictive 8 sectors.
> > > 
> > > What is the user-visible result of splitting IO at 128 sectors?
> > 
> > The VDO dm target fails because it requires IO it receives to be split
> > as it advertised (8 sectors).
> 
> OK, looks VDO's chunk_sector limit is one hard constraint, even though it
> is one DM device, so I guess you are talking about DM over VDO?
> 
> Another reason should be that VDO doesn't use blk_queue_split(), otherwise it
> won't be a trouble, right?
> 
> Frankly speaking, if the stacking driver/device has its own hard queue limit
> like normal hardware drive, the driver should be responsible for the splitting.

DM core does the splitting for VDO (just like any other DM target).
In 5.9 I updated DM to use chunk_sectors, use blk_stack_limits()
stacking of it, and also use blk_max_size_offset().

But all that block core code has shown itself to be too rigid for DM.  I
tried to force the issue by stacking DM targets' ti->max_io_len with
chunk_sectors.  But really I'd need to be able to pass in the per-target
max_io_len to blk_max_size_offset() to salvage using it.

Stacking chunk_sectors seems ill-conceived.  One size-fits-all splitting
is too rigid.

> > > I understand it isn't related with correctness, because the underlying
> > > queue can split by its own chunk_sectors limit further. So is the issue
> > > too many further-splitting on queue with chunk_sectors 8? then CPU
> > > utilization is increased? Or other issue?
> > 
> > No, this is all about correctness.
> > 
> > Seems you're confining the definition of the possible stacking so that
> > the top-level device isn't allowed to have its own hard requirements on
> 
> I just don't know this story, thanks for your clarification.
> 
> As I mentioned above, if the stacking driver has its own hard queue
> limit, it should be the driver's responsibility to respect it via
> blk_queue_split() or whatever.

Again, DM does its own splitting... that aspect of it isn't an issue.
The problem is the basis for splitting cannot be the stacked up
chunk_sectors.

Mike


  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-04  2:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-30 17:18 [dm-devel] [PATCH] block: revert to using min_not_zero() when stacking chunk_sectors Mike Snitzer
2020-11-30 17:18 ` Mike Snitzer
2020-11-30 20:51 ` [dm-devel] " John Dorminy
2020-11-30 20:51   ` John Dorminy
2020-11-30 23:24   ` [dm-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2020-11-30 23:24     ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-01  0:21     ` [dm-devel] " John Dorminy
2020-12-01  0:21       ` John Dorminy
2020-12-01  2:12       ` [dm-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2020-12-01  2:12         ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-01 16:07 ` [dm-devel] [PATCH v2] block: use gcd() to fix chunk_sectors limit stacking Mike Snitzer
2020-12-01 16:07   ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-01 17:43   ` [dm-devel] " John Dorminy
2020-12-01 17:43     ` John Dorminy
2020-12-01 17:53   ` [dm-devel] " Jens Axboe
2020-12-01 17:53     ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-01 18:02   ` [dm-devel] " Martin K. Petersen
2020-12-01 18:02     ` Martin K. Petersen
2020-12-02  3:38   ` [dm-devel] [PATCH] dm: " Jeffle Xu
2020-12-02  3:38     ` Jeffle Xu
2020-12-02  3:38     ` [dm-devel] " Jeffle Xu
2020-12-02  3:38       ` Jeffle Xu
2020-12-02  3:57       ` [dm-devel] " JeffleXu
2020-12-02  3:57         ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02  5:03         ` [dm-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2020-12-02  5:03           ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-02  5:14           ` [dm-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2020-12-02  5:14             ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-02  6:31             ` [dm-devel] " JeffleXu
2020-12-02  6:31               ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02  6:35               ` [dm-devel] " JeffleXu
2020-12-02  6:35                 ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02  6:28           ` [dm-devel] " JeffleXu
2020-12-02  6:28             ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02  7:10           ` [dm-devel] " JeffleXu
2020-12-02  7:10             ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02 15:11             ` [dm-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2020-12-02 15:11               ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-03  1:48               ` [dm-devel] " JeffleXu
2020-12-03  1:48                 ` JeffleXu
2020-12-03  3:26   ` [dm-devel] [PATCH v2] block: " Ming Lei
2020-12-03  3:26     ` Ming Lei
2020-12-03 14:33     ` [dm-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2020-12-03 14:33       ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-03 16:27       ` [dm-devel] " Keith Busch
2020-12-03 16:27         ` Keith Busch
2020-12-03 17:56         ` [dm-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2020-12-03 17:56           ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04  1:45         ` [dm-devel] " Ming Lei
2020-12-04  1:45           ` Ming Lei
2020-12-04  2:11           ` [dm-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04  2:11             ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04  6:22             ` [dm-devel] " Damien Le Moal
2020-12-04  6:22               ` Damien Le Moal
2020-12-04  1:12       ` Ming Lei
2020-12-04  1:12         ` Ming Lei
2020-12-04  2:03         ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2020-12-04  2:03           ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04  3:59           ` [dm-devel] " Ming Lei
2020-12-04  3:59             ` Ming Lei
2020-12-04 16:47             ` [dm-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04 16:47               ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04 17:32               ` [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH] dm: fix IO splitting [was: Re: [PATCH v2] block: use gcd() to fix chunk_sectors limit stacking] Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04 17:32                 ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04 17:49                 ` [dm-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04 17:49                   ` Mike Snitzer

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=20201204020343.GA32150@redhat.com \
    --to=snitzer@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bjohnsto@redhat.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=jdorminy@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.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.