From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
Marco Patalano <mpatalan@redhat.com>,
Ewan Milne <emilne@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: dm: retain stacked max_sectors when setting queue_limits
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 10:27:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240523082731.GA3010@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zk4h-6f2M0XmraJV@kernel.org>
On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 12:48:59PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> [ 74.872485] blk_insert_cloned_request: over max size limit. (2048 > 1024)
> [ 74.872505] device-mapper: multipath: 254:3: Failing path 8:16.
> [ 74.872620] blk_insert_cloned_request: over max size limit. (2048 > 1024)
> [ 74.872641] device-mapper: multipath: 254:3: Failing path 8:32.
> [ 74.872712] blk_insert_cloned_request: over max size limit. (2048 > 1024)
> [ 74.872732] device-mapper: multipath: 254:3: Failing path 8:48.
> [ 74.872788] blk_insert_cloned_request: over max size limit. (2048 > 1024)
> [ 74.872808] device-mapper: multipath: 254:3: Failing path 8:64.
>
> Simply setting max_user_sectors won't help with stacked devices
> because blk_stack_limits() doesn't stack max_user_sectors. It'll
> inform the underlying device's blk_validate_limits() calculation which
> will result in max_sectors having the desired value (which it already
> did, as I showed above). But when stacking limits from underlying
> devices up to the higher-level dm-mpath queue_limits we still have
> information loss.
So while I can't reproduce it, I think the main issue is that
max_sectors really just is a voluntary limit, and enforcing that at
the lower device doesn't really make any sense. So we could just
check blk_insert_cloned_request to check max_hw_sectors instead.
Or my below preferre variant to just drop the check, as the
max_sectors == 0 check indicates it's pretty sketchy to start with.
diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index fc364a226e952f..61b108aa20044d 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -3041,29 +3041,9 @@ void blk_mq_submit_bio(struct bio *bio)
blk_status_t blk_insert_cloned_request(struct request *rq)
{
struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
- unsigned int max_sectors = blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q, req_op(rq));
unsigned int max_segments = blk_rq_get_max_segments(rq);
blk_status_t ret;
- if (blk_rq_sectors(rq) > max_sectors) {
- /*
- * SCSI device does not have a good way to return if
- * Write Same/Zero is actually supported. If a device rejects
- * a non-read/write command (discard, write same,etc.) the
- * low-level device driver will set the relevant queue limit to
- * 0 to prevent blk-lib from issuing more of the offending
- * operations. Commands queued prior to the queue limit being
- * reset need to be completed with BLK_STS_NOTSUPP to avoid I/O
- * errors being propagated to upper layers.
- */
- if (max_sectors == 0)
- return BLK_STS_NOTSUPP;
-
- printk(KERN_ERR "%s: over max size limit. (%u > %u)\n",
- __func__, blk_rq_sectors(rq), max_sectors);
- return BLK_STS_IOERR;
- }
-
/*
* The queue settings related to segment counting may differ from the
* original queue.
>
> Mike
---end quoted text---
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-23 8:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-22 2:51 [PATCH] dm: retain stacked max_sectors when setting queue_limits Mike Snitzer
2024-05-22 14:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-22 16:48 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-22 17:37 ` Ewan Milne
2024-05-23 1:52 ` Ming Lei
2024-05-23 15:38 ` [PATCH for-6.10-rc1] block: fix blk_validate_limits() to properly handle stacked devices Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 15:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 15:48 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 15:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 16:38 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 17:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 17:14 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 7:16 ` dm: retain stacked max_sectors when setting queue_limits Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 8:27 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2024-05-23 14:12 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 14:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 15:44 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 15:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 16:44 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 17:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-22 20:33 ` [PATCH] " Ewan Milne
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=20240523082731.GA3010@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=emilne@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpatalan@redhat.com \
--cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
/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.