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---
next prev 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).