From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Friesen Subject: Re: absurdly high "optimal_io_size" on Seagate SAS disk Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 11:45:15 -0600 Message-ID: <545BB3AB.8070409@windriver.com> References: <545BA625.40308@windriver.com> <545BAD05.3050800@windriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]:43832 "EHLO mail.windriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751193AbaKFRpX (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:45:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: Jens Axboe , lkml , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Mike Snitzer On 11/06/2014 11:34 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Friesen writes: > > Chris> Perhaps the ST900MM0026 should be blacklisted as well? > > Sure. I'll widen the net a bit for that Seagate model. That'd work, but is it the best way to go? I mean, I found one report of a similar problem on an SSD (model number unknown). In that case it was a near-UINT_MAX value as well. The problem with the blacklist is that until someone patches it, the drive is broken. And then it stays blacklisted even if the firmware gets fixed. I'm wondering if it might not be better to just ignore all values larger than X (where X is whatever we think is the largest conceivable reasonable value). Chris