linux-scsi.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	"James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com"
	<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: I/O topology fixes for big physical block size
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:23:10 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100927172309.GA13874@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CA0CC38.5010804@fusionio.com>

On Mon, Sep 27 2010 at 12:54pm -0400,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com> wrote:

> On 2010-09-28 01:41, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > Mike Snitzer reported that he has access to a device that supports thin
> > provisioning but does not use the Block Limits VPD page to indicate
> > discard granularity. Instead it reports a huge (1MB) physical block
> > size. That caused a bit of fallout in the topology stack which assumed a
> > physical block size of 4KiB or less.
> 
> Fixing the overflow aside, I question the validity of setting the physical
> block size to something larger than PAGE_SIZE as there's no way that that
> could really work in the current kernel.
> 
> I would suggest doing something similar as we do with other 'invalid'
> settings that we cannot honor, print a warning and drop the queue
> limits to PAGE_SIZE.

I'm inclined to agree.  Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

But could this cap of PAGE_SIZE be enforced with a follow-on patch?  Or
would you rather see it be dealt with in a single revised 2/2 patch?

Mike

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-09-27 17:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-09-27 16:41 I/O topology fixes for big physical block size Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 16:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] block: Ensure physical block size is unsigned int Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 17:40   ` Mike Snitzer
2010-10-08  5:15     ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-10-13 19:12       ` Mike Snitzer
2010-10-13 19:15         ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 16:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] sd: Fix overflow with big physical blocks Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 17:42   ` Mike Snitzer
2010-09-27 18:13   ` [PATCH] block: eliminate potential for infinite loop in blkdev_issue_discard Mike Snitzer
2010-10-14 21:37     ` Mike Snitzer
2010-10-15 11:05       ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 16:54 ` I/O topology fixes for big physical block size Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 17:20   ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 22:21     ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 22:36       ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 23:15         ` Mike Snitzer
2010-09-28  4:30           ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-28  5:20             ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-28 14:15               ` Mike Snitzer
2010-09-28 20:57                 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-09-28 21:24                   ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-28 21:36                     ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-30 16:30                       ` Ted Ts'o
2010-09-30 17:07                         ` Eric Sandeen
     [not found]                         ` <4CA4C3B6.9000104@redhat.com>
2010-09-30 17:33                           ` Mike Snitzer
2010-10-01 14:24                             ` Ted Ts'o
2010-10-01 22:19                               ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-10-02  2:31                                 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-10-04 19:49                                   ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 17:23   ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2010-09-27 21:58     ` James Bottomley
2010-09-27 22:03       ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 22:14         ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 22:24           ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-28 18:48             ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-28 18:54               ` Mike Snitzer

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=20100927172309.GA13874@redhat.com \
    --to=snitzer@redhat.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.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).