linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: 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 10:12:24 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zk9OyGTESlHXu6Wa@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240523082731.GA3010@lst.de>

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:27:31AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

I haven't tried your patch but we still want properly stacked
max_sectors configured for the device.

> Or my below preferre variant to just drop the check, as the
> max_sectors == 0 check indicates it's pretty sketchy to start with.

At this point in the 6.10 release I don't want further whack-a-mole
fixes due to fallout from removing longstanding negative checks.

Not sure what is sketchy about the max_sectors == 0 check, the large
comment block explains that check quite well.  We want to avoid EIO
for unsupported operations (otherwise we'll get spurious path failures
in the context of dm-multipath).  Could be we can remove this check
after an audit of how LLD handle servicing IO for unsupported
operations -- so best to work through it during a devel cycle.

Not sure why scsi_debug based testing with mptest isn't triggering it
for you. Are you seeing these limits for the underlying scsi_debug
devices?

./max_hw_sectors_kb:2147483647
./max_sectors_kb:512

What are those limits for the mptest created 'mp' dm-multipath device?

Mike

  reply	other threads:[~2024-05-23 14:12 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
2024-05-23 14:12       ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
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=Zk9OyGTESlHXu6Wa@kernel.org \
    --to=snitzer@kernel.org \
    --cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=emilne@redhat.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mpatalan@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).