Thread (4 messages) 4 messages, 2 authors, 2020-11-20

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] blk-settings: make sure that max_sectors is aligned on "logical_block_size" boundary.

From: John Dorminy <hidden>
Date: 2020-11-20 01:27:49
Also in: dm-devel

Greetings;

Might I suggest using SECTOR_SIZE instead of 512? Or, perhaps, >>
SECTOR_SHIFT instead of / 512.

I don't understand the three conditionals. I believe max_sectors is
supposed to be <= min(max_dev_sectors, max_hw_sectors), but I don't
understand why max_sectors being small should adjust max_hw_sectors
and max_dev_sectors. Are the conditions perhaps supposed to be
different, adjusting each max_*sectors up to at least PAGE_SIZE /
SECTOR_SIZE? Perhaps, like e.g. blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(), the
conditionals should log if they are adjusting max_*sectors up to the
minimum.

Thanks!

John Dorminy

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 3:37 PM Mikulas Patocka [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
We get these I/O errors when we run md-raid1 on the top of dm-integrity on
the top of ramdisk:
device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0xff00, 0xff
device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0xff00, 0xff
device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0xffff, 0x1
device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0xffff, 0x1
device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0x8048, 0xff
device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0x8147, 0xff
device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0x8246, 0xff
device-mapper: integrity: Bio not aligned on 8 sectors: 0x8345, 0xbb

The ramdisk device has logical_block_size 512 and max_sectors 255. The
dm-integrity device uses logical_block_size 4096 and it doesn't affect the
"max_sectors" value - thus, it inherits 255 from the ramdisk. So, we have
a device with max_sectors not aligned on logical_block_size.

The md-raid device sees that the underlying leg has max_sectors 255 and it
will split the bios on 255-sector boundary, making the bios unaligned on
logical_block_size.

In order to fix the bug, we round down max_sectors to logical_block_size.

Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

---
 block/blk-settings.c |   10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

Index: linux-2.6/block/blk-settings.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/block/blk-settings.c 2020-10-29 12:20:46.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6/block/blk-settings.c      2020-11-19 21:20:18.000000000 +0100
@@ -591,6 +591,16 @@ int blk_stack_limits(struct queue_limits
                ret = -1;
        }

+       t->max_sectors = round_down(t->max_sectors, t->logical_block_size / 512);
+       if (t->max_sectors < PAGE_SIZE / 512)
+               t->max_sectors = PAGE_SIZE / 512;
+       t->max_hw_sectors = round_down(t->max_hw_sectors, t->logical_block_size / 512);
+       if (t->max_sectors < PAGE_SIZE / 512)
+               t->max_hw_sectors = PAGE_SIZE / 512;
+       t->max_dev_sectors = round_down(t->max_dev_sectors, t->logical_block_size / 512);
+       if (t->max_sectors < PAGE_SIZE / 512)
+               t->max_dev_sectors = PAGE_SIZE / 512;
+
        /* Discard alignment and granularity */
        if (b->discard_granularity) {
                alignment = queue_limit_discard_alignment(b, start);

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
  
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help