linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	"Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
	"linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	"darrick.wong@oracle.com" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 5.3-rc1 regression with XFS log recovery
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:13:26 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190820081325.GA21032@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190820055320.GB27501@lst.de>

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:53:20AM +0200, hch@lst.de wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 02:41:35PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > With the following debug patch.  Based on that I think I'll just
> > > formally submit the vmalloc switch as we're at -rc5, and then we
> > > can restart the unaligned slub allocation drama..
> > 
> > This still doesn't make sense to me, because the pmem and brd code
> > have no aligment limitations in their make_request code - they can
> > handle byte adressing and should not have any problem at all with
> > 8 byte aligned memory in bios.
> > 
> > Digging a little furhter, I note that both brd and pmem use
> > identical mechanisms to marshall data in and out of bios, so they
> > are likely to have the same issue.
> > 
> > So, brd_make_request() does:
> > 
> >         bio_for_each_segment(bvec, bio, iter) {
> >                 unsigned int len = bvec.bv_len;
> >                 int err;
> > 
> >                 err = brd_do_bvec(brd, bvec.bv_page, len, bvec.bv_offset,
> >                                   bio_op(bio), sector);
> >                 if (err)
> >                         goto io_error;
> >                 sector += len >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
> >         }
> > 
> > So, the code behind bio_for_each_segment() splits multi-page bvecs
> > into individual pages, which are passed to brd_do_bvec(). An
> > unaligned 4kB io traces out as:
> > 
> >  [  121.295550] p,o,l,s 00000000a77f0146,768,3328,0x7d0048
> >  [  121.297635] p,o,l,s 000000006ceca91e,0,768,0x7d004e
> > 
> > i.e. page		offset	len	sector
> > 00000000a77f0146	768	3328	0x7d0048
> > 000000006ceca91e	0	768	0x7d004e
> > 
> > You should be able to guess what the problems are from this.

The problem should be that offset of '768' is passed to bio_add_page().

It should be one slub buffer used for block IO, looks an old unsolved
problem.

> > 
> > Both pmem and brd are _sector_ based. We've done a partial sector
> > copy on the first bvec, then the second bvec has started the copy
> > from the wrong offset into the sector we've done a partial copy
> > from.
> > 
> > IOWs, no error is reported when the bvec buffer isn't sector
> > aligned, no error is reported when the length of data to copy was
> > not a multiple of sector size, and no error was reported when we
> > copied the same partial sector twice.
> 
> Yes.  I think bio_for_each_segment is buggy here, as it should not
> blindly split by pages.

bio_for_each_segment() just keeps the original interface as before
introducing multi-page bvec.


Thanks,
Ming

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-08-20  8:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20190818071128.GA17286@lst.de>
     [not found] ` <20190818074140.GA18648@lst.de>
     [not found]   ` <20190818173426.GA32311@lst.de>
     [not found]     ` <20190819000831.GX6129@dread.disaster.area>
     [not found]       ` <20190819034948.GA14261@lst.de>
     [not found]         ` <20190819041132.GA14492@lst.de>
     [not found]           ` <20190819042259.GZ6129@dread.disaster.area>
     [not found]             ` <20190819042905.GA15613@lst.de>
     [not found]               ` <20190819044012.GA15800@lst.de>
     [not found]                 ` <20190820044135.GC1119@dread.disaster.area>
2019-08-20  5:53                   ` 5.3-rc1 regression with XFS log recovery hch
2019-08-20  7:44                     ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-20  8:13                     ` Ming Lei [this message]
2019-08-20  9:24                       ` Ming Lei
2019-08-20 16:30                         ` Verma, Vishal L
2019-08-20 21:44                         ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-20 22:08                           ` Verma, Vishal L
2019-08-20 23:53                             ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-21  2:19                             ` Ming Lei
2019-08-21  1:56                           ` Ming Lei

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=20190820081325.GA21032@ming.t460p \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).