All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@windriver.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: absurdly high "optimal_io_size" on Seagate SAS disk
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 11:16:53 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <545BAD05.3050800@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <545BA625.40308@windriver.com>

On 11/06/2014 10:47 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm running a modified 3.4-stable on relatively recent X86 server-class
> hardware.
>
> I recently installed a Seagate ST900MM0026 (900GB 2.5in 10K SAS drive)
> and it's reporting a value of 4294966784 for optimal_io_size.  The other
> parameters look normal though:
>
> /sys/block/sda/queue/hw_sector_size:512
> /sys/block/sda/queue/logical_block_size:512
> /sys/block/sda/queue/max_segment_size:65536
> /sys/block/sda/queue/minimum_io_size:512
> /sys/block/sda/queue/optimal_io_size:4294966784

<snip>

> According to the manual, the ST900MM0026 has a 512 byte physical sector
> size.
>
> Is this a drive firmware bug?  Or a bug in the SAS driver?  Or is there
> a valid reason for a single drive to report such a huge value?
>
> Would it make sense for the kernel to do some sort of sanity checking on
> this value?

Looks like this sort of thing has been seen before, in other drives (one 
of which is from the same family as my drive):

http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg65292.html

http://iamlinux.technoyard.in/blog/why-is-my-ssd-disk-not-reconized-by-the-rhel6-anaconda-installer/

Perhaps the ST900MM0026 should be blacklisted as well?

Or maybe the SCSI code should do a variation on Mike Snitzer's original 
patch and just ignore any values above some reasonable threshold?  (And 
then we could remove the blacklist on the ST900MM0006.)

Chris

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@windriver.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: absurdly high "optimal_io_size" on Seagate SAS disk
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 11:16:53 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <545BAD05.3050800@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <545BA625.40308@windriver.com>

On 11/06/2014 10:47 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm running a modified 3.4-stable on relatively recent X86 server-class
> hardware.
>
> I recently installed a Seagate ST900MM0026 (900GB 2.5in 10K SAS drive)
> and it's reporting a value of 4294966784 for optimal_io_size.  The other
> parameters look normal though:
>
> /sys/block/sda/queue/hw_sector_size:512
> /sys/block/sda/queue/logical_block_size:512
> /sys/block/sda/queue/max_segment_size:65536
> /sys/block/sda/queue/minimum_io_size:512
> /sys/block/sda/queue/optimal_io_size:4294966784

<snip>

> According to the manual, the ST900MM0026 has a 512 byte physical sector
> size.
>
> Is this a drive firmware bug?  Or a bug in the SAS driver?  Or is there
> a valid reason for a single drive to report such a huge value?
>
> Would it make sense for the kernel to do some sort of sanity checking on
> this value?

Looks like this sort of thing has been seen before, in other drives (one 
of which is from the same family as my drive):

http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg65292.html

http://iamlinux.technoyard.in/blog/why-is-my-ssd-disk-not-reconized-by-the-rhel6-anaconda-installer/

Perhaps the ST900MM0026 should be blacklisted as well?

Or maybe the SCSI code should do a variation on Mike Snitzer's original 
patch and just ignore any values above some reasonable threshold?  (And 
then we could remove the blacklist on the ST900MM0006.)

Chris

  reply	other threads:[~2014-11-06 17:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-06 16:47 absurdly high "optimal_io_size" on Seagate SAS disk Chris Friesen
2014-11-06 17:16 ` Chris Friesen [this message]
2014-11-06 17:16   ` Chris Friesen
2014-11-06 17:34   ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-06 17:34     ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-06 17:45     ` Chris Friesen
2014-11-06 17:45       ` Chris Friesen
2014-11-06 18:12       ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-06 18:12         ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-06 18:15         ` Jens Axboe
2014-11-06 19:14         ` Chris Friesen
2014-11-06 19:14           ` Chris Friesen
2014-11-07  1:56           ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-07  1:56             ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-07  5:35             ` Chris Friesen
2014-11-07  5:35               ` Chris Friesen
2014-11-07 15:18               ` Dale R. Worley
2014-11-07 16:25               ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-07 16:25                 ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-07 17:42                 ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-07 17:42                   ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-07 17:51                   ` Chris Friesen
2014-11-07 17:51                     ` Chris Friesen
2014-11-07 18:03                     ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-07 18:03                       ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-07 18:48                 ` Chris Friesen
2014-11-07 18:48                   ` Chris Friesen
2014-11-07 19:17                   ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-07 19:17                     ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-07 21:04                     ` Chris Friesen
2014-11-07 21:04                       ` Chris Friesen
2014-11-07 17:10             ` Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
2014-11-07 17:40               ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-07 17:40                 ` Martin K. Petersen
2014-11-07 20:15               ` Douglas Gilbert

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=545BAD05.3050800@windriver.com \
    --to=chris.friesen@windriver.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=snitzer@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.