From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEDBC433E6 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 07:40:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7371D64D5D for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 07:40:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231749AbhBWHkN (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2021 02:40:13 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:54086 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230429AbhBWHji (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2021 02:39:38 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1614065884; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9TIXmQ0RNQdJ2dixYmYDGqb30SpsFD0g6DsYMu6sBds=; b=DWyca4aqaogGVtMlNeq6EHgxOWt7Rv2x/QTc+mMxExoYgfwf4H0wNqiNi1PaCc7VQv30ae Amk8DZ27qyzw8NPOYw2v6izoRGKyos4/3KXYlhg3znQCe+ezWBQDWbIn0NB4c9LJ8JrhLN 4GxAxt9LtXb1ZL8MR/Pu/viEpUzyB3k= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-406-__mYrrmxMNSAJof5tMgvHQ-1; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 02:38:02 -0500 X-MC-Unique: __mYrrmxMNSAJof5tMgvHQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39D0A80196C; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 07:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from T590 (ovpn-12-246.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.246]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAEF25D764; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 07:37:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:37:46 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Mikulas Patocka Cc: Jens Axboe , Marian Csontos , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-settings: make sure that max_sectors is aligned on "logical_block_size" boundary. (fwd) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 01:15:32PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:36:51 -0500 (EST) > From: Mikulas Patocka > To: David Teigland , Jens Axboe > Cc: heinzm@redhat.com, Zdenek Kabelac , > Marian Csontos , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, > dm-devel@redhat.com > Subject: [PATCH] blk-settings: make sure that max_sectors is aligned on > "logical_block_size" boundary. > > We get these I/O errors when we run md-raid1 on the top of dm-integrity on > the top of ramdisk: > device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0xff00, 0xff > device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0xff00, 0xff > device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0xffff, 0x1 > device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0xffff, 0x1 > device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0x8048, 0xff > device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0x8147, 0xff > device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0x8246, 0xff > device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0x8345, 0xbb > > The ramdisk device has logical_block_size 512 and max_sectors 255. The > dm-integrity device uses logical_block_size 4096 and it doesn't affect the > "max_sectors" value - thus, it inherits 255 from the ramdisk. So, we have > a device with max_sectors not aligned on logical_block_size. > > The md-raid device sees that the underlying leg has max_sectors 255 and it > will split the bios on 255-sector boundary, making the bios unaligned on > logical_block_size. > > In order to fix the bug, we round down max_sectors to logical_block_size. > > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > --- > block/blk-settings.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > Index: linux-2.6/block/blk-settings.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/block/blk-settings.c 2020-10-29 12:20:46.000000000 +0100 > +++ linux-2.6/block/blk-settings.c 2020-11-19 21:20:18.000000000 +0100 > @@ -591,6 +591,16 @@ int blk_stack_limits(struct queue_limits > ret = -1; > } > > + t->max_sectors = round_down(t->max_sectors, t->logical_block_size / 512); > + if (t->max_sectors < PAGE_SIZE / 512) > + t->max_sectors = PAGE_SIZE / 512; > + t->max_hw_sectors = round_down(t->max_hw_sectors, t->logical_block_size / 512); > + if (t->max_sectors < PAGE_SIZE / 512) if (t->max_hw_sectors < PAGE_SIZE / 512) > + t->max_hw_sectors = PAGE_SIZE / 512; > + t->max_dev_sectors = round_down(t->max_dev_sectors, t->logical_block_size / 512); > + if (t->max_sectors < PAGE_SIZE / 512) if (t->max_dev_sectors < PAGE_SIZE / 512) > + t->max_dev_sectors = PAGE_SIZE / 512; I'd suggest to add a helper(such as, blk_round_down_sectors()) to round_down each one. -- Ming