From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com>,
Aegis Lin <aegislin@gmail.com>,
Masakazu Mokuno <Masakazu_Mokuno@hq.scei.sony.co.jp>,
Cell Broadband Engine OSS Development <cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH] ps3rom: sector size should be 512 bytes
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:44:35 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1201805075.11265.178.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1201802031.3131.29.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 11:53 -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 09:28 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 10:26 -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 08:10 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 06:10 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > > > > Greetings Geert and Co,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a related patch that I have been using with ps3rom.c for some
> > > > > > time that fixes a bug in fs/bio.c that assumes 512 byte sectors for
> > > > > > ATAPI operations. This bug actually exists for all non 512 byte sector
> > > > > > devices go through this code path (I found it with
> > > > > > scsi_execute_async()), but I first ran into this issue with ps3rom.c
> > > > > > because max_sectors (32) is small enough to trigger the bug assuming 512
> > > > > > byte sectors during typical ATAPI READ_10 ops with iSCSI/HD. Because
> > > > > > typical max_sector settings for libata and USB are much higher, I have
> > > > > > never ran into this issue outside of ps3rom.c, but the bug exists
> > > > > > nevertheless..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The current patch assumes 512 byte sectors, and adds a sector_size
> > > > > > parameter to drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c:scsi_req_map_sg() to change it for
> > > > > > passed struct request. I know that some folks talked about killing
> > > > > > scsi_execute_async() and fixing this problem elsewhere, but until then
> > > > > > please consider this patch. Any input is also appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > My first reaction is really, no; there's no way we should be doing such
> > > > > a nasty layering violation.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't care for it either, but without this patch (or something
> > > > similar) all SCSI targets that use scsi_execute_async(), for non 512
> > > > byte requests are broken. This causes a problem when a small max_sector
> > > > is correctly used by the LLD, and trips the check in
> > > > fs/bio.c:__bio_add_page()
> > > >
> > > > if (((bio->bi_size + len) >> 9) > max_sectors)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Could we rewind this discussion back to an actual problem description
> > > then, please? Nothing in the standard path for a CD/DVD should be using
> > > scsi_execute_async(), what's the actual problem use case?
> > >
> >
> > The problem case is a SCSI Target Mode engine that receives a 2048 Byte
> > single sector ATAPI READ_10 request from the storage fabric, and uses
> > scsi_execute_async() (the only option >= 2.6.18) to issue said request
> > to the underlying struct scsi_device. Because the underlying bio code
> > assumes 512 byte only sectors, the check in __bio_add_page() incorrectly
> > determines that max_sectors (max_sectors has to be low, as with 32 from
> > ps3rom.c) has been exceeded, and fails the request back up the stack.
>
> OK, so this is a totally separate issue from the one you actually posted
> it as a patch to fix?
>
> the queue max_sectors parameter is also counted in the block internal of
> 512 byte sectors. If you set it to 32 that means you were only
> expecting 16k of transfers per command maximum. If that's not right,
> then set the limit correctly.
>
> In short, and to repeat: almost every internal size counter to block is
> in units of 512 byte sectors ... that includes capacity, maximum etc ...
>
Ok, after reading your followup with Geert I see that this looks like a
bug in ps3rom.c assuming 2048 byte sectors to calculate .max_sectors
(which was originally set to 32 as I mentioned). Using the setting
BOUNCE_SIZE << 9 where BOUNCE_SIZE is the request size in bytes looks
like this will solve the issue. My misunderstanding was
that .max_sectors was allowed to be calcuated in non 512 byte sectors,
so please disregard my patch.
Geert, .max_sectors for ps3rom.c using 512 byte sectors ends up being
128, yes.?
James, could we put something in the SCSI docs stating that .max_sectors
MUST be calculated against 512 byte sectors..?
Thanks again,
--nab
> James
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-31 18:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <dc3abf350801290318u66474599n2f293832373f3706@mail.gmail.com>
2008-01-31 13:28 ` [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH] ps3rom: sector size should be 512 bytes Geert Uytterhoeven
2008-01-31 14:10 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2008-01-31 15:34 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-31 16:10 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2008-01-31 16:26 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-31 17:28 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2008-01-31 17:41 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2008-01-31 18:06 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-31 18:48 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2008-01-31 17:53 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-31 18:44 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger [this message]
2008-01-31 19:14 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2008-02-01 5:01 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2008-01-31 19:42 ` James Bottomley
2008-02-01 1:58 ` Update SCSI documentation for 512 byte sector requirement with max_sectors Nicholas A. Bellinger
2008-02-01 2:46 ` Randy Dunlap
2008-02-01 4:38 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
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=1201805075.11265.178.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org \
--to=nab@linux-iscsi.org \
--cc=Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=Masakazu_Mokuno@hq.scei.sony.co.jp \
--cc=aegislin@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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