From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Guy Watkins" <linux-raid@watkins-home.com>
Subject: RE: Bug#624343: linux-image-2.6.38-2-amd64: frequent message
 "bio too big device md0 (248 > 240)" in kern.log
Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 22:47:55 -0400
Message-ID: <AFE0035C8E784AF8BE3370E7D72A2595@m5>
References: <20110427161901.27049.31001.reportbug@servo.factory.finestructure.net><1304051980.3105.46.camel@localhost><8739kyf53e.fsf@servo.factory.finestructure.net><1304294457.2833.111.camel@localhost>
 <20110502102224.7787d6bd@notabene.brown>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-reply-to: <20110502102224.7787d6bd@notabene.brown>
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: 'NeilBrown' <neilb@suse.de>, 'Ben Hutchings' <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Cc: 'Jameson Graef Rollins' <jrollins@finestructure.net>, 624343@bugs.debian.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

} -----Original Message-----
} From: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-raid-
} owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of NeilBrown
} Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 8:22 PM
} To: Ben Hutchings
} Cc: Jameson Graef Rollins; 624343@bugs.debian.org; linux-
} raid@vger.kernel.org
} Subject: Re: Bug#624343: linux-image-2.6.38-2-amd64: frequent message "bio
} too big device md0 (248 > 240)" in kern.log
} 
} On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:00:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
} wrote:
} 
} > On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 15:06 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
} > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 05:39:40 +0100, Ben Hutchings
} <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
} > > > On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 09:19 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
} > > > > I run what I imagine is a fairly unusual disk setup on my laptop,
} > > > > consisting of:
} > > > >
} > > > >   ssd -> raid1 -> dm-crypt -> lvm -> ext4
} > > > >
} > > > > I use the raid1 as a backup.  The raid1 operates normally in
} degraded
} > > > > mode.  For backups I then hot-add a usb hdd, let the raid1 sync,
} and
} > > > > then fail/remove the external hdd.
} > > >
} > > > Well, this is not expected to work.  Possibly the hot-addition of a
} disk
} > > > with different bio restrictions should be rejected.  But I'm not
} sure,
} > > > because it is safe to do that if there is no mounted filesystem or
} > > > stacking device on top of the RAID.
} > >
} > > Hi, Ben.  Can you explain why this is not expected to work?  Which
} part
} > > exactly is not expected to work and why?
} >
} > Adding another type of disk controller (USB storage versus whatever the
} > SSD interface is) to a RAID that is already in use.
} 
} Normally this practice is perfectly OK.
} If a filesysytem is mounted directly from an md array, then adding devices
} to the array at any time is fine, even if the new devices have quite
} different characteristics than the old.
} 
} However if there is another layer in between md and the filesystem - such
} as
} dm - then there can be problem.
} There is no mechanism in the kernl for md to tell dm that things have
} changed, so dm never changes its configuration to match any change in the
} config of the md device.
} 
} A filesystem always queries the config of the device as it prepares the
} request.  As this is not an 'active' query (i.e. it just looks at
} variables, it doesn't call a function) there is no opportunity for dm to
} then
} query md.
} 
} There is a ->merge_bvec_fn which could be pushed into service.  i.e. if
} md/raid1 defined some trivial merge_bvec_fn, then it would probably work.
} However the actual effect of this would probably to cause every bio
} created
} by the filesystem to be just one PAGE in size, and this is guaranteed
} always
} to work.  So it could be a significant performance hit for the common
} case.
} 
} We really need either:
}  - The fs sends down arbitrarily large requests, and the lower layers
} split
}    them up if/when needed
} or
}  - A mechanism for a block device to tell the layer above that something
} has
}    changed.
} 
} But these are both fairly intrusive which unclear performance/complexity
} implications and no one has bothered.
} 
} NeilBrown

Maybe mdadm should not allow a disk to be added if its characteristics are
different enough to be an issue?  And require the --force option if the
admin really wants to do it anyhow.

Oh, and a good error message explaining the issues and risks.  :)

Guy