All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jet Chen <jet.chen@intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [jet.chen@intel.com: [bio] kernel BUG at drivers/block/virtio_blk.c:166!]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 23:16:17 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5385FDC1.2020800@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140527112459.GF2205@dhcp-27-189.brq.redhat.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2175 bytes --]

On 05/27/2014 07:24 PM, Maurizio Lombardi wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:43:59AM +0200, Maurizio Lombardi wrote:
>>
>> But now I'm suspicious of this part of commit 3979ef4dcf:
>>
>>  failed:
>>         bvec->bv_page = NULL;
>>         bvec->bv_len = 0;
>>         bvec->bv_offset = 0;
>>         bio->bi_vcnt--;  <----------------
>>         blk_recount_segments(q, bio);
>>         return 0;
>>
>> Is decreasing bi_vcnt sufficient to guarantee that blk_recount_segments()
>> recalculates the correct number of physical segments?
>> Looking at the __blk_recalc_rq_segments() it appears it may not be the case.
>>
>> The question is how can we restore the correct number of physical segments in case
>> of failure without breaking anything...
>>
> 
> If my hypothesis is correct, the following patch should trigger a kernel panic,
> Jet Chen, can you try it and let me know whether the BUG_ON is hit or not?

Sorry for late respond. Dongsu has sent a patch for this issue.
	message-id <1401289778-9840-1-git-send-email-dongsu.park@profitbricks.com>
Do you still need me to test the following patch ?

> 
> diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c
> index 0443694..763868f 100644
> --- a/block/bio.c
> +++ b/block/bio.c
> @@ -701,6 +701,7 @@ static int __bio_add_page(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio, struct page
>  			  unsigned int max_sectors)
>  {
>  	int retried_segments = 0;
> +	unsigned int phys_segments_orig;
>  	struct bio_vec *bvec;
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -751,6 +752,9 @@ static int __bio_add_page(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio, struct page
>  	if (bio->bi_vcnt >= bio->bi_max_vecs)
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	blk_recount_segments(q, bio);
> +	phys_segments_orig = bio->bi_phys_segments;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * setup the new entry, we might clear it again later if we
>  	 * cannot add the page
> @@ -811,6 +815,7 @@ static int __bio_add_page(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio, struct page
>  	bvec->bv_offset = 0;
>  	bio->bi_vcnt--;
>  	blk_recount_segments(q, bio);
> +	BUG_ON(phys_segments_orig != bio->bi_phys_segments);
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Maurizio Lombardi 
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jet Chen <jet.chen@intel.com>
To: Maurizio Lombardi <mlombard@redhat.com>,
	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkp@01.org, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [jet.chen@intel.com: [bio] kernel BUG at drivers/block/virtio_blk.c:166!]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 23:16:17 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5385FDC1.2020800@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140527112459.GF2205@dhcp-27-189.brq.redhat.com>

On 05/27/2014 07:24 PM, Maurizio Lombardi wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:43:59AM +0200, Maurizio Lombardi wrote:
>>
>> But now I'm suspicious of this part of commit 3979ef4dcf:
>>
>>  failed:
>>         bvec->bv_page = NULL;
>>         bvec->bv_len = 0;
>>         bvec->bv_offset = 0;
>>         bio->bi_vcnt--;  <----------------
>>         blk_recount_segments(q, bio);
>>         return 0;
>>
>> Is decreasing bi_vcnt sufficient to guarantee that blk_recount_segments()
>> recalculates the correct number of physical segments?
>> Looking at the __blk_recalc_rq_segments() it appears it may not be the case.
>>
>> The question is how can we restore the correct number of physical segments in case
>> of failure without breaking anything...
>>
> 
> If my hypothesis is correct, the following patch should trigger a kernel panic,
> Jet Chen, can you try it and let me know whether the BUG_ON is hit or not?

Sorry for late respond. Dongsu has sent a patch for this issue.
	message-id <1401289778-9840-1-git-send-email-dongsu.park@profitbricks.com>
Do you still need me to test the following patch ?

> 
> diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c
> index 0443694..763868f 100644
> --- a/block/bio.c
> +++ b/block/bio.c
> @@ -701,6 +701,7 @@ static int __bio_add_page(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio, struct page
>  			  unsigned int max_sectors)
>  {
>  	int retried_segments = 0;
> +	unsigned int phys_segments_orig;
>  	struct bio_vec *bvec;
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -751,6 +752,9 @@ static int __bio_add_page(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio, struct page
>  	if (bio->bi_vcnt >= bio->bi_max_vecs)
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	blk_recount_segments(q, bio);
> +	phys_segments_orig = bio->bi_phys_segments;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * setup the new entry, we might clear it again later if we
>  	 * cannot add the page
> @@ -811,6 +815,7 @@ static int __bio_add_page(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio, struct page
>  	bvec->bv_offset = 0;
>  	bio->bi_vcnt--;
>  	blk_recount_segments(q, bio);
> +	BUG_ON(phys_segments_orig != bio->bi_phys_segments);
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Maurizio Lombardi 
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-05-28 15:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-26 19:43 [jet.chen@intel.com: [bio] kernel BUG at drivers/block/virtio_blk.c:166!] Maurizio Lombardi
2014-05-26 19:43 ` Maurizio Lombardi
2014-05-27  4:03 ` Ming Lei
2014-05-27  4:03   ` Ming Lei
2014-05-27  8:44   ` Maurizio Lombardi
2014-05-27  8:44     ` Maurizio Lombardi
2014-05-27 11:24     ` Maurizio Lombardi
2014-05-27 11:24       ` Maurizio Lombardi
2014-05-28 15:09       ` Dongsu Park
2014-05-28 15:09         ` Dongsu Park
2014-05-28 15:09       ` [PATCH] bio: decrease bi_iter.bi_size by len in the fail path Dongsu Park
2014-05-28 15:42         ` Ming Lei
2014-05-28 16:59           ` Ming Lei
2014-05-28 17:21             ` Maurizio Lombardi
2014-05-28 17:44               ` Ming Lei
2014-05-29  6:06                 ` Jet Chen
2014-05-29  7:04                   ` Maurizio Lombardi
2014-05-29  7:28                     ` Ming Lei
2014-05-29  3:35             ` Jet Chen
2014-05-29  4:13               ` Ming Lei
2014-05-29  4:36                 ` Jet Chen
2014-05-30  9:41             ` Dongsu Park
2014-05-28 15:49         ` Maurizio Lombardi
2014-05-29  3:21         ` Jet Chen
2014-05-28 15:16       ` Jet Chen [this message]
2014-05-28 15:16         ` [jet.chen@intel.com: [bio] kernel BUG at drivers/block/virtio_blk.c:166!] Jet Chen
2014-05-28 15:27         ` Maurizio Lombardi
2014-05-28 15:27           ` Maurizio Lombardi

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=5385FDC1.2020800@intel.com \
    --to=jet.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=lkp@lists.01.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.