From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH] block: warn if blk_stack_limits() undermines atomicity
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:49:20 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100222204920.GA24514@redhat.com> (raw)
Linux Device Mapper (DM) and Software Raid (MD) device drivers can be
used to arbitrarily combine devices with different "I/O Limits". The
kernel's block layer goes to great lengths to reasonably combine the
"I/O Limits" of the individual devices. The kernel will not prevent
combining heterogenuous devices but the user should be aware of the risk
associated with doing so.
For instance, a 512 byte device and a 4K device may be combined into a
single logical DM device; the resulting DM device would have a
logical_block_size of 4K. Filesystems layered on such a hybrid device
assume that 4K will be written atomically but in reality that 4K will be
split into 8 512 byte IOs when issued to the 512 byte device. Using a
4K logical_block_size for the higher-level DM device increases potential
for a partial write to the 512b device if there is a system crash.
If combining multiple devices' "I/O Limits" results in a conflict the
block layer will report a warning that the device is more susceptible to
partial writes and misaligned. [NOTE: setting "misaligned" for this
warning is somewhat awkward but blk_stack_limits() return of -1 can be
viewed as there was an "alignment inconsistency". Would it be better to
return -1 but avoid setting t->misaligned?]
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
diff --git a/block/blk-settings.c b/block/blk-settings.c
index 5eeb9e0..33bebe7 100644
--- a/block/blk-settings.c
+++ b/block/blk-settings.c
@@ -566,8 +566,16 @@ int blk_stack_limits(struct queue_limits *t, struct queue_limits *b,
}
}
+ top = t->logical_block_size;
t->logical_block_size = max(t->logical_block_size,
b->logical_block_size);
+ if (top && top < t->logical_block_size) {
+ printk(KERN_NOTICE "Warning: changing logical_block_size of top device "
+ "(from %u to %u) increases potential for partial writes\n",
+ top, t->logical_block_size);
+ t->misaligned = 1;
+ ret = -1;
+ }
t->physical_block_size = max(t->physical_block_size,
b->physical_block_size);
next reply other threads:[~2010-02-22 20:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-22 20:49 Mike Snitzer [this message]
2010-02-23 17:10 ` [RFC PATCH] block: warn if blk_stack_limits() undermines atomicity Martin K. Petersen
2010-02-23 19:32 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-02-24 0:12 ` Martin K. Petersen
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=20100222204920.GA24514@redhat.com \
--to=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@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