All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Brian King <brking@us.ibm.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	mark.bergman@uphs.upenn.edu
Subject: Re: block: don't check request size in blk_cloned_rq_check_limits()
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:33:32 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5760F6BC.60109@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yq17fdrcjs3.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>

On 06/15/2016 03:39 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>> "Hannes" == Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> writes:
> 
> Hannes> Well, the primary issue is that 'blk_cloned_rq_check_limits()'
> Hannes> doesn't check for BLOCK_PC,
> 
> Yes it does. It calls blk_rq_get_max_sectors() which has an explicit
> check for this:
> 
> static inline unsigned int blk_rq_get_max_sectors(struct request *rq)
> {
>         struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
> 
>         if (unlikely(rq->cmd_type != REQ_TYPE_FS))
>                         return q->limits.max_hw_sectors;
> [...]
> 
> Hannes> The max_segments count, OTOH, _might_ change during failover
> Hannes> (different hardware has different max_segments setting, and this
> Hannes> is being changed during sg mapping), so there is some value to
> Hannes> be had from testing it here.
> 
> Oh, this happens during failover? Are you sure it's not because DM is
> temporarily resetting the queue limits? max_sectors is going to be a
> single page in that case. I just discussed a backport regression in this
> department with Mike at LSF/MM. But that was for an older kernel.
> 
> Accidentally resetting the limits during table swaps has happened a
> couple of times over the years. We trip it instantly with the database
> in failover testing.
> 
Unfortunately, we have two distinct bugs lurking in that function.
The resetting limits during failover is something we've probably hitting
with a mixed initiator setting, but it will typically materialize as a
transient error when tripping over the _other_ check.
But this particular issue is seen directly during booting.

And as I've mentioned before: what is the purpose of this check?

'max_sectors' and 'max_hw_sectors' are checked during request assembly,
and those limits are not changed even after calling
blk_recalc_rq_segments(). And if we go over any device-imposed
restrictions we'll be getting an I/O error from the driver anyway.
So why have it at all?

Especially as the system boots happily with this check removed...

Cheers,

-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		   Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@suse.de			               +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N�rnberg
GF: F. Imend�rffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG N�rnberg)

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Brian King <brking@us.ibm.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	mark.bergman@uphs.upenn.edu
Subject: Re: block: don't check request size in blk_cloned_rq_check_limits()
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:33:32 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5760F6BC.60109@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yq17fdrcjs3.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>

On 06/15/2016 03:39 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>> "Hannes" == Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> writes:
> 
> Hannes> Well, the primary issue is that 'blk_cloned_rq_check_limits()'
> Hannes> doesn't check for BLOCK_PC,
> 
> Yes it does. It calls blk_rq_get_max_sectors() which has an explicit
> check for this:
> 
> static inline unsigned int blk_rq_get_max_sectors(struct request *rq)
> {
>         struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
> 
>         if (unlikely(rq->cmd_type != REQ_TYPE_FS))
>                         return q->limits.max_hw_sectors;
> [...]
> 
> Hannes> The max_segments count, OTOH, _might_ change during failover
> Hannes> (different hardware has different max_segments setting, and this
> Hannes> is being changed during sg mapping), so there is some value to
> Hannes> be had from testing it here.
> 
> Oh, this happens during failover? Are you sure it's not because DM is
> temporarily resetting the queue limits? max_sectors is going to be a
> single page in that case. I just discussed a backport regression in this
> department with Mike at LSF/MM. But that was for an older kernel.
> 
> Accidentally resetting the limits during table swaps has happened a
> couple of times over the years. We trip it instantly with the database
> in failover testing.
> 
Unfortunately, we have two distinct bugs lurking in that function.
The resetting limits during failover is something we've probably hitting
with a mixed initiator setting, but it will typically materialize as a
transient error when tripping over the _other_ check.
But this particular issue is seen directly during booting.

And as I've mentioned before: what is the purpose of this check?

'max_sectors' and 'max_hw_sectors' are checked during request assembly,
and those limits are not changed even after calling
blk_recalc_rq_segments(). And if we go over any device-imposed
restrictions we'll be getting an I/O error from the driver anyway.
So why have it at all?

Especially as the system boots happily with this check removed...

Cheers,

-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		   Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@suse.de			               +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-06-15  6:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-30  7:24 [PATCH] block: don't check request size in blk_cloned_rq_check_limits() Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-10 13:19 ` Mike Snitzer
2016-06-10 13:30   ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-10 13:30     ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-10 14:18     ` Mike Snitzer
2016-06-11 10:05       ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11 10:05         ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11  2:22   ` Martin K. Petersen
2016-06-11 10:01     ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11 10:01       ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11 11:06       ` Martin K. Petersen
2016-06-11 13:10         ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11 13:10           ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-13  8:07           ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-06-15  1:39           ` Martin K. Petersen
2016-06-15  2:29             ` Mike Snitzer
2016-06-15  2:32               ` Martin K. Petersen
2016-06-15  6:33             ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2016-06-15  6:33               ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-15 10:03               ` Jens Axboe
2016-06-15 10:33                 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-15 10:33                   ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-15 16:34                   ` Brian King
2016-06-16 12:35                     ` Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
2016-06-16 21:59                       ` Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
2016-06-17  6:59                         ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-17  6:59                           ` Hannes Reinecke

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=5760F6BC.60109@suse.de \
    --to=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=brking@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.bergman@uphs.upenn.edu \
    --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.