* Re: [dm-devel] need help with dm & md raid10 issue [not found] <C8607BD3-5701-40A1-AA17-62B2A807A751@fb.com> @ 2020-12-12 14:28 ` Mike Snitzer 2020-12-12 17:12 ` Song Liu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Mike Snitzer @ 2020-12-12 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Song Liu; +Cc: Jens Axboe, Heinz Mauelshagen, Xiao Ni, dm-devel On Sat, Dec 12 2020 at 3:42am -0500, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I am looking at the a new warning while reverting the raid10 changes: > > In file included from ./include/linux/kernel.h:14, > from ./include/asm-generic/bug.h:20, > from ./arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:93, > from ./include/linux/bug.h:5, > from ./include/linux/mmdebug.h:5, > from ./include/linux/gfp.h:5, > from ./include/linux/slab.h:15, > from drivers/md/dm-raid.c:8: > drivers/md/dm-raid.c: In function ‘raid_io_hints’: > ./include/linux/minmax.h:18:28: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast > 18 | (!!(sizeof((typeof(x) *)1 == (typeof(y) *)1))) > | ^~ > ./include/linux/minmax.h:32:4: note: in expansion of macro ‘__typecheck’ > 32 | (__typecheck(x, y) && __no_side_effects(x, y)) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~ > ./include/linux/minmax.h:42:24: note: in expansion of macro ‘__safe_cmp’ > 42 | __builtin_choose_expr(__safe_cmp(x, y), \ > | ^~~~~~~~~~ > ./include/linux/minmax.h:51:19: note: in expansion of macro ‘__careful_cmp’ > 51 | #define min(x, y) __careful_cmp(x, y, <) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ./include/linux/minmax.h:84:39: note: in expansion of macro ‘min’ > 84 | __x == 0 ? __y : ((__y == 0) ? __x : min(__x, __y)); }) > | ^~~ > drivers/md/dm-raid.c:3739:33: note: in expansion of macro ‘min_not_zero’ > 3739 | limits->max_discard_sectors = min_not_zero(rs->md.chunk_sectors, > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ > > This is caused by recent reverts. Here is what happened. > > We are looking at 7 patches, in the original committed order: > > [md1 - md5] > md: add md_submit_discard_bio() for submitting discard bio > md/raid10: extend r10bio devs to raid disks > md/raid10: pull codes that wait for blocked dev into one function > md/raid10: improve raid10 discard request > md/raid10: improve discard request for far layout > > [dm1 - dm2] > dm raid: fix discard limits for raid1 and raid10 > dm raid: remove unnecessary discard limits for raid10 > > dm2 depends on the md1-5 changes, while dm1 doesn't. > > I reverted md patches and dm2, which caused the new warning above. I > didn't pay much attention to it, because I thought I was reverting a > patch, so I just brought back an old warning. However, this was wrong. > The warning was introduced in dm1, and fixed in dm2. Therefore, there > wasn't warning before dm1 or after dm2. It happens with dm1 only. OK, I see it when I revert f0e90b6c663a7e3b4736cb318c6c7c589f152c28 But a simple cast silences it: diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c index dc8568ab96f2..8e04a4cb16a4 100644 --- a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c +++ b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c @@ -3736,7 +3736,7 @@ static void raid_io_hints(struct dm_target *ti, struct queue_limits *limits) if (rs_is_raid10(rs)) { limits->discard_granularity = max(chunk_size_bytes, limits->discard_granularity); - limits->max_discard_sectors = min_not_zero(rs->md.chunk_sectors, + limits->max_discard_sectors = min_not_zero((unsigned)rs->md.chunk_sectors, limits->max_discard_sectors); } } But I think a proper fix is needed in MD (see below). > At this point, I think our best option is to revert all of these patches. > As dm1 alone hasn't been tested much (and it triggers new warning). > > However, as I plan to test dm raid10, I found there might be some issue > with it. I am following https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Device-mapper#RAID10 > and using commands: > > for S in {0..3} ; do dmsetup create test-raid-metadata$S \ > --table "0 8192 linear /dev/loop$S 0"; \ > dmsetup create test-raid-data$S --table "0 1953125 linear /dev/loop$S 8192"; done > > dmsetup create test-raid10 --table '0 1953024 raid raid10 5 512 raid10_format near raid10_copies 2 4 - /dev/mapper/test-raid-data0 - /dev/mapper/test-raid-data1 - /dev/mapper/test-raid-data2 - /dev/mapper/test-raid-data3' > > The second command give some error. After debugging I found raid_ctr() > calls md_run() with rs->md.new_layout == 0, which doesn't work. The > new_layout was initially set to 258 in parse_raid_params(), but got > overwritten to zero in rs_set_cur(). With the following hack, I was > finally able to run tests with dm-raid10. > > =================== 8< ========================= > > diff --git i/drivers/md/dm-raid.c w/drivers/md/dm-raid.c > index 9c1f7c4de65b3..13b624490e24c 100644 > --- i/drivers/md/dm-raid.c > +++ w/drivers/md/dm-raid.c > @@ -3178,7 +3178,6 @@ static int raid_ctr(struct dm_target *ti, unsigned int argc, char **argv) > /* Reshaping ain't recovery, so disable recovery */ > rs_setup_recovery(rs, MaxSector); > } > - rs_set_cur(rs); > } else { > size_check: > /* May not set recovery when a device rebuild is requested */ > > =================== 8< ========================= > > Could you please help me with the following: > > 1. Confirm it is OK to revert both dm patches, which is available at > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/song/md.git md-fixes > > This is urgent, as we need it in 5.10 final this weekend. I'm not understanding how the compiler warning relates to your gentoo recipe's failure (seems it doesn't). But given MD raid1 doesn't require bio splitting, reverting e0910c8e4f87b is excessive. Why not do the unsigned cast like I showed above? But secondarily: why is chunk_sectorsin 'struct mddev' _not_ 'unsigned int' like it is in 'struct queue_limits'? Isn't the proper fix just changing MD's chunk_sectors to 'unsigned int'? E.g. this seems to silence the compiler warning too: diff --git a/drivers/md/md.h b/drivers/md/md.h index ccfb69868c2e..b0814d8f3523 100644 --- a/drivers/md/md.h +++ b/drivers/md/md.h @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ struct mddev { int external; /* metadata is * managed externally */ char metadata_type[17]; /* externally set*/ - int chunk_sectors; + unsigned int chunk_sectors; time64_t ctime, utime; int level, layout; char clevel[16]; @@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ struct mddev { */ sector_t reshape_position; int delta_disks, new_level, new_layout; - int new_chunk_sectors; + unsigned int new_chunk_sectors; int reshape_backwards; struct md_thread *thread; /* management thread */ > 2. Help me with dm-raid testing. Is it a bug? Or did I use wrong options? > > This is probably not urgent, as the same command gives same error on 5.9.0. I don't know, likely best for Xiao or Heinz to have a look. These private mails are completely unnecessary. You really should be communicating with Xiao and Heinz and cc'ing dm-devel (I've done that now). I never even saw any exchange where you even ask Xaio about the corruption, caused by his raid10 discard changes, that kicked off your cascade of reverts. That may have happened and I just missed it. But if it didn't happen: why not? Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [dm-devel] need help with dm & md raid10 issue 2020-12-12 14:28 ` [dm-devel] need help with dm & md raid10 issue Mike Snitzer @ 2020-12-12 17:12 ` Song Liu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Song Liu @ 2020-12-12 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Snitzer; +Cc: Jens Axboe, Heinz Mauelshagen, Xiao Ni, dm-devel@redhat.com Hi Mike, Thanks for your timely reply over the weekend. > On Dec 12, 2020, at 6:28 AM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 12 2020 at 3:42am -0500, > Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> wrote: > >> Hi Mike, >> >> I am looking at the a new warning while reverting the raid10 changes: SNIP >> We are looking at 7 patches, in the original committed order: >> >> [md1 - md5] >> md: add md_submit_discard_bio() for submitting discard bio >> md/raid10: extend r10bio devs to raid disks >> md/raid10: pull codes that wait for blocked dev into one function >> md/raid10: improve raid10 discard request >> md/raid10: improve discard request for far layout >> >> [dm1 - dm2] >> dm raid: fix discard limits for raid1 and raid10 >> dm raid: remove unnecessary discard limits for raid10 >> >> dm2 depends on the md1-5 changes, while dm1 doesn't. >> >> I reverted md patches and dm2, which caused the new warning above. I >> didn't pay much attention to it, because I thought I was reverting a >> patch, so I just brought back an old warning. However, this was wrong. >> The warning was introduced in dm1, and fixed in dm2. Therefore, there >> wasn't warning before dm1 or after dm2. It happens with dm1 only. > > OK, I see it when I revert f0e90b6c663a7e3b4736cb318c6c7c589f152c28 > > But a simple cast silences it: > > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c > index dc8568ab96f2..8e04a4cb16a4 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c > @@ -3736,7 +3736,7 @@ static void raid_io_hints(struct dm_target *ti, struct queue_limits *limits) > if (rs_is_raid10(rs)) { > limits->discard_granularity = max(chunk_size_bytes, > limits->discard_granularity); > - limits->max_discard_sectors = min_not_zero(rs->md.chunk_sectors, > + limits->max_discard_sectors = min_not_zero((unsigned)rs->md.chunk_sectors, > limits->max_discard_sectors); > } > } Yes, this is the first thing I tried yesterday. > > But I think a proper fix is needed in MD (see below). And I agree that fixing it in MD is the proper fix. This will be included in 5.11. The reason I proposed to revert patch dm1 instead is that we are about one day before 5.10 release, and these two versions haven't got much tests. On the other hand, as we both checked all the uses of chunk_sectors in MD code, it should be safe. > >> At this point, I think our best option is to revert all of these patches. >> As dm1 alone hasn't been tested much (and it triggers new warning). >> >> However, as I plan to test dm raid10, I found there might be some issue >> with it. I am following https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Device-mapper#RAID10 >> and using commands: >> >> for S in {0..3} ; do dmsetup create test-raid-metadata$S \ >> --table "0 8192 linear /dev/loop$S 0"; \ >> dmsetup create test-raid-data$S --table "0 1953125 linear /dev/loop$S 8192"; done >> >> dmsetup create test-raid10 --table '0 1953024 raid raid10 5 512 raid10_format near raid10_copies 2 4 - /dev/mapper/test-raid-data0 - /dev/mapper/test-raid-data1 - /dev/mapper/test-raid-data2 - /dev/mapper/test-raid-data3' >> >> The second command give some error. After debugging I found raid_ctr() >> calls md_run() with rs->md.new_layout == 0, which doesn't work. The >> new_layout was initially set to 258 in parse_raid_params(), but got >> overwritten to zero in rs_set_cur(). With the following hack, I was >> finally able to run tests with dm-raid10. >> >> =================== 8< ========================= >> >> diff --git i/drivers/md/dm-raid.c w/drivers/md/dm-raid.c >> index 9c1f7c4de65b3..13b624490e24c 100644 >> --- i/drivers/md/dm-raid.c >> +++ w/drivers/md/dm-raid.c >> @@ -3178,7 +3178,6 @@ static int raid_ctr(struct dm_target *ti, unsigned int argc, char **argv) >> /* Reshaping ain't recovery, so disable recovery */ >> rs_setup_recovery(rs, MaxSector); >> } >> - rs_set_cur(rs); >> } else { >> size_check: >> /* May not set recovery when a device rebuild is requested */ >> >> =================== 8< ========================= >> >> Could you please help me with the following: >> >> 1. Confirm it is OK to revert both dm patches, which is available at >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/song/md.git md-fixes >> >> This is urgent, as we need it in 5.10 final this weekend. > > I'm not understanding how the compiler warning relates to your gentoo > recipe's failure (seems it doesn't). It doesn't relate to the warning. I brought it up because I found I didn't know how to test DM-RAID properly. > > But given MD raid1 doesn't require bio splitting, reverting > e0910c8e4f87b is excessive. > > Why not do the unsigned cast like I showed above? But secondarily: why > is chunk_sectorsin 'struct mddev' _not_ 'unsigned int' like it is in > 'struct queue_limits'? > > Isn't the proper fix just changing MD's chunk_sectors to 'unsigned int'? > E.g. this seems to silence the compiler warning too: > > diff --git a/drivers/md/md.h b/drivers/md/md.h > index ccfb69868c2e..b0814d8f3523 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/md.h > +++ b/drivers/md/md.h > @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ struct mddev { > int external; /* metadata is > * managed externally */ > char metadata_type[17]; /* externally set*/ > - int chunk_sectors; > + unsigned int chunk_sectors; > time64_t ctime, utime; > int level, layout; > char clevel[16]; > @@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ struct mddev { > */ > sector_t reshape_position; > int delta_disks, new_level, new_layout; > - int new_chunk_sectors; > + unsigned int new_chunk_sectors; > int reshape_backwards; > > struct md_thread *thread; /* management thread */ > >> 2. Help me with dm-raid testing. Is it a bug? Or did I use wrong options? >> >> This is probably not urgent, as the same command gives same error on 5.9.0. > > I don't know, likely best for Xiao or Heinz to have a look. > > These private mails are completely unnecessary. > > You really should be communicating with Xiao and Heinz and cc'ing > dm-devel (I've done that now). I never even saw any exchange where you > even ask Xaio about the corruption, caused by his raid10 discard > changes, that kicked off your cascade of reverts. > > That may have happened and I just missed it. But if it didn't happen: > why not? Xiao and I had brief communications about this issue in the linux-raid list. Xiao was on vacation this week, and he planned to look into it next week. Unfortunately, that has to wait until 5.11. Thanks again, Song -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-12-12 17:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <C8607BD3-5701-40A1-AA17-62B2A807A751@fb.com>
2020-12-12 14:28 ` [dm-devel] need help with dm & md raid10 issue Mike Snitzer
2020-12-12 17:12 ` Song Liu
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.