Re: kernel BUG at drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c:1096!

Jens Axboe
2015-11-25T17:57:12Z

On 11/25/2015 02:04 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 11/20/2015 04:28 PM, Ewan Milne wrote:
>> On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 15:55 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> Can't we have a joint effort here?
>>> I've been spending a _LOT_ of time trying to debug things here, but
>>> none of the ideas I've come up with have been able to fix anything.
>>
>> Yes. I'm not the one primarily looking at it, and we don't have a
>> reproducer in-house. We just have the one dump right now.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm almost tempted to increase the count from scsi_alloc_sgtable()
>>> by one and be done with ...
>>>
>>
>> That might not fix it if it is a problem with the merge code, though.
>>
> And indeed, it doesn't.
> Seems I finally found the culprit.
>
> What happens is this:
> We have two paths, with these seg_boundary_masks:
>
> path-1: seg_boundary_mask = 65535,
> path-2: seg_boundary_mask = 4294967295,
>
> consequently the DM request queue has this:
>
> md-1: seg_boundary_mask = 65535,
>
> What happens now is that a request is being formatted, and sent
> to path 2. During submission req->nr_phys_segments is formatted
> with the limits of path 2, arriving at a count of 3.
> Now the request gets retried on path 1, but as the NOMERGE request
> flag is set req->nr_phys_segments is never updated.
> But blk_rq_map_sg() ignores all counters, and just uses the
> bi_vec directly, resulting in a count of 4 -> boom.
>
> So the culprit here is the NOMERGE flag, which is evaluated
> via
> ->dm_dispatch_request()
> ->blk_insert_cloned_request()
> ->blk_rq_check_limits()
>
> If the above assessment is correct, the following patch should
> fix it:
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> index 801ced7..12cccd6 100644
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@ -1928,7 +1928,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(submit_bio);
> */
> int blk_rq_check_limits(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
> {
> - if (!rq_mergeable(rq))
> + if (rq->cmd_type != REQ_TYPE_FS)
> return 0;
>
> if (blk_rq_sectors(rq) > blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q,
> rq->cmd_flags)) {
>
>
> Mike? Jens?
> Can you comment on it?

We only support merging on REQ_TYPE_FS already, so how is the above
making it any different? In general, NOMERGE being set or not should not
make a difference. It's only a hint that we need not check further if we
should be merging on this request, since we already tried it once, found
we'd exceed various limits, then set NOMERGE to reflect that.

--
Jens Axboe