From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ot1-f54.google.com (mail-ot1-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99E291420B0 for ; Wed, 22 May 2024 16:49:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.54 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716396545; cv=none; b=VKyaxFPFk3bbIODJ4Hv+V9H6hUmBm2clDGjJc9cx1NvUYRGub93lGg5LZthsYM8iX+U6FqDDCWrfa3kaQXUdXd8UYrbr7nVRunLTHzZm4NUUuzwqjYQetjWe46JDDVd1U7gKwThjqrMB7rNvWENx3HPhcZc281VaugJQtxppKyk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716396545; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7MzehI0Q2fJpHZsH1+KgnNH047c73IwfOfxTS9IjLcE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OH+0mzRBQ5Iv/fYkT1qhxUs1h0aJ6PXBEoyqEjUnxCTuP1lCWohQNcmKG6XJ/bZ1krg8JBCrx6w3DWRrGT/XKKacIFveCt2eZOA3YScqm0SnJkxlFzxOthAn9cbEd4TNyXEc7D8KVm3WGqozmxmc4E0XIkU5I801wTKs40aM7nQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=snitzer.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.54 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=snitzer.net Received: by mail-ot1-f54.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6f0e4212d5aso2819151a34.3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2024 09:49:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1716396541; x=1717001341; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=9sJh3+M7j60eGGfzHmACpJhU1B6ooDDZPfumWrr/YfY=; b=CQpENgqqWIXY+XBCFd/eoH/YxH5NEiL+Ic/fscFbhLsTYSlawr88o3A28skL9n6/Tb gxYPEbwk/GReV5aLPI3iX5qXu7Z2oLo2Wmo9ZR/ShUswEKNT1r6JVl/ZoJFD8bb6Zj7L kLVtvJUqyhTKOPdfm+oYOGTfac3o4jf4gV3ug488vHKYOLkoBHvYlxJMdXjP69CMgXUx 6xBvM17C2S5qBQShof1cgv/3XqYdcBoIGvY897Ryc2wjwfYFSNawDT5FI0Cw9Havrm7/ UViDu7QVJOMDMaPCrdB+Y+D3Bkq0lsUwKiCL7L/QgfRi584t6k4tmSchYC13KJmb1dev IgjQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzoKHIQnqwYugaxUkK40LnGBvo15hnK83mFYu+oqqtZj+DTNBF9 0sYfVPuyrFdgRoMwe4DHGMe3WLOluv+66Bo2ohw2qD9RNcaHSvS+2vmFshuw/1k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGeZSQX+E3YkbKQFl9xkKgIoXpFnXcZjjux/ZrFPulBr4tPWIpSG7dOPSN9T7Bd71fh8mpW3w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:b0f:b0:24c:6335:cf1c with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-24c68ad9b78mr2867125fac.13.1716396541620; Wed, 22 May 2024 09:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (pool-68-160-141-91.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [68.160.141.91]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d75a77b69052e-43df54ef4c9sm173199201cf.30.2024.05.22.09.49.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 22 May 2024 09:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 12:48:59 -0400 From: Mike Snitzer To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Marco Patalano , Ewan Milne Subject: Re: dm: retain stacked max_sectors when setting queue_limits Message-ID: References: <20240522025117.75568-1-snitzer@kernel.org> <20240522142458.GB7502@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: dm-devel@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240522142458.GB7502@lst.de> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 04:24:58PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:51:17PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > Otherwise, blk_validate_limits() will throw-away the max_sectors that > > was stacked from underlying device(s). In doing so it can set a > > max_sectors limit that violates underlying device limits. > > Hmm, yes it sort of is "throwing the limit away", but it really > recalculates it from max_hw_sectors, max_dev_sectors and user_max_sectors. Yes, but it needs to do that recalculation at each level of a stacked device. And then we need to combine them via blk_stack_limits() -- as is done with the various limits stacking loops in drivers/md/dm-table.c:dm_calculate_queue_limits > > This caused dm-multipath IO failures like the following because the > > underlying devices' max_sectors were stacked up to be 1024, yet > > blk_validate_limits() defaulted max_sectors to BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS_CAP > > (2560): > > I suspect the problem is that SCSI messed directly with max_sectors instead > and ignores max_user_sectors (and really shouldn't touch either, but that's > a separate discussion). Can you try the patch below and maybe also provide > the sysfs output for max_sectors_kb and max_hw_sectors_kb for all involved > devices? FYI, you can easily reproduce with: git clone https://github.com/snitm/mptest.git cd mptest ./runtest ./tests/test_00_no_failure Also, best to change this line: ./lib/mpath_generic: local _feature="4 queue_if_no_path retain_attached_hw_handler queue_mode $MULTIPATH_QUEUE_MODE" to: ./lib/mpath_generic: local _feature="3 retain_attached_hw_handler queue_mode $MULTIPATH_QUEUE_MODE" Otherwise the test will hang due to queue_if_no_path. all underlying scsi-debug scsi devices: ./max_hw_sectors_kb:2147483647 ./max_sectors_kb:512 multipath device: before my fix: ./max_hw_sectors_kb:2147483647 ./max_sectors_kb:1280 after my fix: ./max_hw_sectors_kb:2147483647 ./max_sectors_kb:512 > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c > index 332eb9dac22d91..f6c822c9cbd2d3 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c > @@ -3700,8 +3700,10 @@ static int sd_revalidate_disk(struct gendisk *disk) > */ > if (sdkp->first_scan || > q->limits.max_sectors > q->limits.max_dev_sectors || > - q->limits.max_sectors > q->limits.max_hw_sectors) > + q->limits.max_sectors > q->limits.max_hw_sectors) { > q->limits.max_sectors = rw_max; > + q->limits.max_user_sectors = rw_max; > + } > > sdkp->first_scan = 0; > > Driver shouldn't be changing max_user_sectors.. But it also didn't fix it (mpath still gets ./max_sectors_kb:1280): [ 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. Mike