From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cc: Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@gmail.com>,
Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
hch@lst.de, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: IO failures with SMR drives at latest kernel versions
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:52:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1440629555.2196.92.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55DD5F45.7010905@suse.de>
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 08:40 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 08/26/2015 06:53 AM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote:
> >>> I looked at this commit and it actually adds SMR support to SCSI
> >>> layer. Reverting ATA_DEV_ZAC means going back to zones-unaware
> >>> algorithms. It is suboptimal but still much better than IO failures
> >>> and "BTRFS: lost page write due to I/O error on /dev/sdc" errors I see
> >>> at my computer.
> >>>
> >>> If this SMR support is considered as non-stable, can we at least get a
> >>> kernel boot (or config) option that disables ZAC?
> >>>
> >> Again: Has anybody actually _tested_ that reverting this patch fixes
> >> this issue?
> >
> > Yes I tested it.
> >
> > This error happens only under heavy load with a lot of read/writes
> > (like btrfs rebalance).
> >
> > With current Linux-4.1.6 'btrfs balance' fails after ~10 minutes after
> > start. I reverted ZAC related changes and then ran rebalancing. The
> > operation finished successfully after 3 hours of running.
> >
> Can you be a bit more specific about the 'ZAC related changes'?
> There have been several patches, and we really would need to know
> which one was the offending one.
> Can you try to bisect things here?
OK, let's stop shooting the messenger here. There are multiple reports
of this problem. The pattern seems to be some type of error causes
everything to die.
There looks to be an obvious bug in
9162c6579bf90b3f5ddb7e3a6c6fa946c1b4cbeb in that there's no
ATA_DEV_ZAC_UNSUP class which means that any attempt to disable the
device pushes it up to ATA_DEV_NONE. I'm not sure ... don't have time
to follow the code ... but doesn't this interfere with the speed
dropping routines which seems to disable then re-enable the device?
Does adding ATA_DEV_ZAC_UNSUP fix this problem? patch (compile tested
only) below.
James
---
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c b/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
index d6c37bc..fa83320 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
@@ -144,6 +144,7 @@ static struct {
{ ATA_DEV_SEMB, "semb" },
{ ATA_DEV_SEMB_UNSUP, "semb" },
{ ATA_DEV_ZAC, "zac" },
+ { ATA_DEV_ZAC_UNSUP, "zac" },
{ ATA_DEV_NONE, "none" }
};
ata_bitfield_name_search(class, ata_class_names)
diff --git a/include/linux/libata.h b/include/linux/libata.h
index 36ce37b..49c5b98 100644
--- a/include/linux/libata.h
+++ b/include/linux/libata.h
@@ -191,7 +191,8 @@ enum {
ATA_DEV_SEMB = 7, /* SEMB */
ATA_DEV_SEMB_UNSUP = 8, /* SEMB (unsupported) */
ATA_DEV_ZAC = 9, /* ZAC device */
- ATA_DEV_NONE = 10, /* no device */
+ ATA_DEV_ZAC_UNSUP = 10, /* ZAC (unsupported) */
+ ATA_DEV_NONE = 11, /* no device */
/* struct ata_link flags */
ATA_LFLAG_NO_HRST = (1 << 1), /* avoid hardreset */
@@ -1517,7 +1518,8 @@ static inline unsigned int ata_class_enabled(unsigned int class)
static inline unsigned int ata_class_disabled(unsigned int class)
{
return class == ATA_DEV_ATA_UNSUP || class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI_UNSUP ||
- class == ATA_DEV_PMP_UNSUP || class == ATA_DEV_SEMB_UNSUP;
+ class == ATA_DEV_PMP_UNSUP || class == ATA_DEV_SEMB_UNSUP ||
+ class == ATA_DEV_ZAC_UNSUP;
}
static inline unsigned int ata_class_absent(unsigned int class)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-26 22:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-22 5:37 IO failures with SMR drives at latest kernel versions Anatol Pomozov
2015-08-22 16:35 ` Tejun Heo
2015-08-22 17:23 ` Anatol Pomozov
2015-08-24 6:15 ` Hannes Reinecke
2015-08-24 7:21 ` Anatol Pomozov
2015-08-26 4:53 ` Anatol Pomozov
2015-08-26 6:40 ` Hannes Reinecke
2015-08-26 21:13 ` Anatol Pomozov
2015-08-26 22:52 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2015-08-27 6:18 ` Hannes Reinecke
2015-08-24 6:11 ` 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=1440629555.2196.92.camel@HansenPartnership.com \
--to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=anatol.pomozov@gmail.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).