Re: [patch] disable READA

Marcelo Tosatti
2002-07-30T21:27:53Z

Who is using READA this days ?

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:

>
> There's a bug in bread() which can cause it to misinterpret a
> failed READA request as an IO error on SMP.
>
> If a filesytem block is subject to READA and __make_request()
> decides that the request would block then __make_request()
> will (via end_buffer_io_sync) mark the buffer as not uptodate
> and will unlock it.
>
> But if another CPU attempts to bread() the same buffer at the same
> time, the following happens:
>
> 1: ll_rw_block() sees the buffer is locked and does nothing at all
>
> 2: bread() does a wait_on_buffer()
>
> 3: the other CPU (the one doing READA) unlocks the non uptodate buffer
>
> 4: bread() sees the buffer come unlocked. It's not uptodate, so
> bread() bogusly reports an IO error.
>
> I haven't seen it in the wild, because it is rare to get that
> much read I/O in flight. reiserfs and ext3 (at least) use READA.
>
> An appropriate fix for 2.4 is to disable READA.
>
>
> ll_rw_blk.c | 2 ++
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions
>
> --- 2.4.19-rc3/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c~no-readahead Tue Jul 30 14:18:17 2002
> +++ 2.4.19-rc3-akpm/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c Tue Jul 30 14:19:52 2002
> @@ -841,7 +841,9 @@ static int __make_request(request_queue_
> rw_ahead = 0; /* normal case; gets changed below for READA */
> switch (rw) {
> case READA:
> +#if 0 /* bread() misinterprets failed READA attempts as IO errors on SMP */
> rw_ahead = 1;
> +#endif
> rw = READ; /* drop into READ */
> case READ:
> case WRITE:
>
> .
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>