From: Brian King <brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>, Brian King <brking@us.ibm.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
mark.bergman@uphs.upenn.edu,
Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauricfo@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: block: don't check request size in blk_cloned_rq_check_limits()
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:34:22 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5761838E.1000106@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57612F12.5070505@suse.de>
On 06/15/2016 05:33 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 12:03 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 06/15/2016 08:33 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> You don't know that to be the case. The driver asked for certain limits,
>> the core MUST obey them. The driver should not need to check for these
>> limits, outside of in a BUG_ON() like manner.
>>
> Okay.
> But again, what is the purpose of this check?
> I do agree that we need to do a sanity check after we're recalculated
> the sg elements, but we never recalculate the overall size of the request.
> So why do we check only max_sector_size?
> Why not max_segment_size?
> Surely the queue limits can be different for that, too?
>
>>> Especially as the system boots happily with this check removed...
>>
>> That's the case for you, but you can't assume this to be the case in
>> general.
>>
>> There's a _lot_ of hand waving in this thread, Hannes. How do we
>> reproduce this? We need to get this fixed for real, not just delete some
>> check that triggers for you and that it just happens to work without.
>> That's not how you fix problems.
>>
> Well. Yes, I know.
> This issue is ATM only ever reproduced on ppc64le running on ibmvfc. And
> has been reported by a customer to us.
> So there is not much I can do with reproducing here, sadly.
>
> Maybe Brian King has some ideas/possibilities for this.
> Brian, can you reproduce this with latest upstream kernel?
> If so, can you file a bug at kernel.org?
Mauricio was looking at this, adding him to cc. We did have a KVM config
where we could reproduce this issue as well, I think with some PCI passthrough
adapters. Mauricio - do you have any more details about the KVM config that
reproduced this issue and did you ever try to reproduce this with an upstream
kernel?
Thanks,
Brian
--
Brian King
Power Linux I/O
IBM Linux Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-15 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ 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 14:18 ` Mike Snitzer
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 11:06 ` Martin K. Petersen
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
2016-06-15 10:03 ` Jens Axboe
2016-06-15 10:33 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-15 16:34 ` Brian King [this message]
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
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=5761838E.1000106@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=brking@us.ibm.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.bergman@uphs.upenn.edu \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=mauricfo@linux.vnet.ibm.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 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).