linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	Marco Patalano <mpatalan@redhat.com>,
	Ewan Milne <emilne@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: dm: retain stacked max_sectors when setting queue_limits
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 10:27:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240523082731.GA3010@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zk4h-6f2M0XmraJV@kernel.org>

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 12:48:59PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> [   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.

So while I can't reproduce it, I think the main issue is that
max_sectors really just is a voluntary limit, and enforcing that at
the lower device doesn't really make any sense.  So we could just
check blk_insert_cloned_request to check max_hw_sectors instead.
Or my below preferre variant to just drop the check, as the
max_sectors == 0 check indicates it's pretty sketchy to start with.


diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index fc364a226e952f..61b108aa20044d 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -3041,29 +3041,9 @@ void blk_mq_submit_bio(struct bio *bio)
 blk_status_t blk_insert_cloned_request(struct request *rq)
 {
 	struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
-	unsigned int max_sectors = blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q, req_op(rq));
 	unsigned int max_segments = blk_rq_get_max_segments(rq);
 	blk_status_t ret;
 
-	if (blk_rq_sectors(rq) > max_sectors) {
-		/*
-		 * SCSI device does not have a good way to return if
-		 * Write Same/Zero is actually supported. If a device rejects
-		 * a non-read/write command (discard, write same,etc.) the
-		 * low-level device driver will set the relevant queue limit to
-		 * 0 to prevent blk-lib from issuing more of the offending
-		 * operations. Commands queued prior to the queue limit being
-		 * reset need to be completed with BLK_STS_NOTSUPP to avoid I/O
-		 * errors being propagated to upper layers.
-		 */
-		if (max_sectors == 0)
-			return BLK_STS_NOTSUPP;
-
-		printk(KERN_ERR "%s: over max size limit. (%u > %u)\n",
-			__func__, blk_rq_sectors(rq), max_sectors);
-		return BLK_STS_IOERR;
-	}
-
 	/*
 	 * The queue settings related to segment counting may differ from the
 	 * original queue.

> 
> Mike
---end quoted text---

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-05-23  8:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-05-22  2:51 [PATCH] dm: retain stacked max_sectors when setting queue_limits Mike Snitzer
2024-05-22 14:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-22 16:48   ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-22 17:37     ` Ewan Milne
2024-05-23  1:52     ` Ming Lei
2024-05-23 15:38       ` [PATCH for-6.10-rc1] block: fix blk_validate_limits() to properly handle stacked devices Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 15:44         ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 15:48           ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 15:52             ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 16:38               ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 17:05                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 17:14                   ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23  7:16     ` dm: retain stacked max_sectors when setting queue_limits Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23  8:27     ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2024-05-23 14:12       ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 14:49         ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 15:44           ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 15:50             ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 16:44               ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 17:03                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-22 20:33 ` [PATCH] " Ewan Milne

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=20240523082731.GA3010@lst.de \
    --to=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=emilne@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mpatalan@redhat.com \
    --cc=snitzer@kernel.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 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).