From: Vasily Averin <vvs@sw.ru>
To: agk@redhat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
devel@openvz.org, stable@kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>, Milan Broz <mbroz@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Re: dm: bounce_pfn limit added
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:13:33 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47282B1D.8030501@sw.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071031020133.GL10006@agk.fab.redhat.com>
Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> So currently we treat bounce_pfn as a property that does not need to be
> propagated through the stack.
>
> But is that the right approach?
> - Is there a blk_queue_bounce() missing either from dm or elsewhere?
> (And BTW can the bio_alloc() that lurks within lead to deadlock?)
>
> Firstly, what's going wrong?
> - What is the dm table you are using? (output of 'dmsetup table')
> - Which dm targets and with how many underlying devices?
> - Which underlying driver?
> - Is this direct I/O to the block device from userspace, or via some
> filesystem or what?
On my testnode I have 6 Gb memory (1Gb normal zone for i386 kernels),
i2o hardware and lvm over i2o.
[root@ts10 ~]# dmsetup table
vzvg-vz: 0 10289152 linear 80:5 384
vzvg-vzt: 0 263127040 linear 80:5 10289536
[root@ts10 ~]# cat /proc/partitions
major minor #blocks name
80 0 143374336 i2o/hda
80 1 514048 i2o/hda1
80 2 4096575 i2o/hda2
80 3 2040255 i2o/hda3
80 4 1 i2o/hda4
80 5 136721151 i2o/hda5
253 0 5144576 dm-0
253 1 131563520 dm-1
Diotest from LTP test suite with ~1Mb buffer size and files on dm-over-i2o
paritions corrupts i2o_iop0_msg_inpool slab.
I2o on this node is able to handle only requests with up to 38 segments. Device
mapper correctly creates such requests and as you know it uses
max_pfn=BLK_BOUNCE_ANY. When this request translates to underlying device, it
clones bio and cleans BIO_SEG_VALID flag.
In this way underlying device calls blk_recalc_rq_segments() to recount number
of segments. However blk_recalc_rq_segments uses bounce_pfn=BLK_BOUNCE_HIGH
taken from underlying device. As result number of segments become over than
max_hw_segments limit.
Unfortunately there is not any checks and when i2o driver handles this incorrect
request it fills the memory out of i2o_iop0_msg_inpool slab.
Thank you,
Vasily Averin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-31 7:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-29 6:31 dm: bounce_pfn limit added Vasily Averin
2007-10-30 20:11 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-30 23:26 ` [dm-devel] " Alasdair G Kergon
2007-10-31 2:01 ` Alasdair G Kergon
2007-10-31 2:11 ` Alasdair G Kergon
2007-10-31 7:13 ` Vasily Averin [this message]
2007-10-31 7:36 ` Hannes Reinecke
2007-10-31 22:00 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2007-11-01 0:00 ` Alasdair G Kergon
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=47282B1D.8030501@sw.ru \
--to=vvs@sw.ru \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=devel@openvz.org \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbroz@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@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).