From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: mpatocka@redhat.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
davem@davemloft.net, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix q->max_segment_size checking in blk_recalc_rq_segments about VMERGE
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:27:19 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <487F48B7.3010807@panasas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080717221908D.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:50:24 -0400 (EDT)
> Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Please give me an example how the boundary restriction of a device can
>>>>> break the VMERGE accounting and an IOMMU if you aren't still sure.
>>>> You have dma_get_seg_boundary and dma_get_max_seg_size. On sparc64, adding
>>>> one of these broken VMERGE accounting (the VMERGE didn't happen past 64-kb
>>>> boundary and bio layer thought that VMERGE would be possible).
>>> If the device has 64KB boundary restriction, the device also has
>>> max_seg_size restriction of 64KB or under. So the vmerge acounting
>>> works (though we need to fix it to handle max_seg_size, as discussed).
>>>
>>>> And if you fix this case, someone will break it again, sooner or later, by
>>>> adding new restriction.
>>> All restrictions that IOMMUs need to know are dma_get_seg_boundary and
>>> dma_get_max_seg_size.
>>>
>>> What is your new restriction?
>> We don't know what happens in the future.
>
> It's very unlikely to add new restrictions.
>
>
>> And that is the problem that we
>> don't know --- but we have two pieces of code (blk-merge and iommu) that
>> try to calculate the same number (number of hw segments) and if they get
>> different result, it will crash. If the calculations were done at one
>> place, there would be no problem with that.
>
> I don't think that your argument, 'the problem that we don't know', is
> true.
>
> With the vmerge accounting, we calculate at two places. So if we add
> a new restriction, we need to handle it at two places. It's a logical
> result.
>
> Of course, it's easier to calculate at one place rather than two
> places. But 'we don't know what restriction we will need' isn't a
> problem.
>
>
> BTW, as I've already said, I'm not against removing the vmerge
> accounting from the block layer.
I have a question. Does the block layer know of the IOMMU in use
for the device? can it call into the IOMMU to calculate the
restriction?
Thanks Boaz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-17 13:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-15 10:44 [PATCH] block: fix q->max_segment_size checking in blk_recalc_rq_segments about VMERGE FUJITA Tomonori
2008-07-15 13:37 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-07-15 14:20 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-07-15 14:37 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-07-15 15:30 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-07-15 15:46 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-07-16 0:34 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-07-16 18:02 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-07-17 4:14 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-07-17 11:50 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-07-17 13:18 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-07-17 13:27 ` Boaz Harrosh [this message]
2008-07-17 13:56 ` James Bottomley
2008-07-19 7:28 ` David Miller
2008-07-20 1:45 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-07-20 2:17 ` James Bottomley
2008-07-20 4:07 ` David Miller
2008-07-20 14:52 ` James Bottomley
2008-07-20 17:23 ` David Miller
2008-07-20 17:33 ` James Bottomley
2008-07-24 15:07 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-07-24 15:28 ` James Bottomley
2008-07-24 16:34 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-07-24 16:52 ` James Bottomley
2008-07-24 21:49 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-07-24 21:53 ` David Miller
2008-07-25 3:47 ` James Bottomley
2008-07-25 5:21 ` David Miller
2008-07-25 2:26 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-07-25 2:40 ` [PATCH] block: fix q->max_segment_size checking in blk_recalc_rq_segments John David Anglin
2008-07-20 5:54 ` [PATCH] block: fix q->max_segment_size checking in blk_recalc_rq_segments about VMERGE David Miller
2008-07-15 14:50 ` James Bottomley
2008-07-15 15:24 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-07-15 15:41 ` James Bottomley
2008-07-15 15:58 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-07-15 16:07 ` James Bottomley
2008-07-15 16:20 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-07-15 16:36 ` James Bottomley
2008-07-15 21:50 ` Mikulas Patocka
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=487F48B7.3010807@panasas.com \
--to=bharrosh@panasas.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.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