On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 11:05:20AM -0700, Eric Wheeler wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Zhengyuan Liu wrote:
>
> > Hi, I have created a mapped block device (bcach0) using make-bcache on
> > ARM64 server which has kernel enable 64K page size. However, the
> > bcach0 disappeared after the server reboot and there is no or dirty
> > metadata on super block of both cache device and back device . The
> > output of command bcache-super-show was as bellow showed:
> > [root@master Linux-4.4-LTS-storage]# bcache-super-show /dev/sdb
> > sb.magic bad magic
> > Invalid superblock (bad magic)
> > /dev/sdb was the backing device and cache device got bad magic too.
> >
> > I tried to traced the written process of super block in bcache source
> > code and found that is the issue of PAGE_SIZE. It seems that the
> > bcache was designed only considering for 4K PAGE_SIZE and it works
> > right only on 4K PAGE_SIZE exactly. To make bcache work correctly on
> > 64K PAGE_SIZE, I committed a patch as bellow showd:
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> > index 330cd6e..ef567cd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> > @@ -224,6 +224,12 @@ static void __write_super(struct cache_sb
> > *sb, struct bio *bio
> > bio->bi_iter.bi_size = SB_SIZE;
> > bch_bio_map(bio, NULL);
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES
> > + out = (struct cache_sb *)((char *)out + (SB_SECTOR<<9));
> > + pr_debug("sb_page_adress %x, sb_address %x,page_size
> > %d\n",page_address(bio
> > + bio->bi_io_vec[0].bv_offset = (SB_SECTOR<<9);
> > +#endif
> >
> > out->offset = cpu_to_le64(sb->offset);
> > out->version = cpu_to_le64(sb->version);
> >
> > Does it not recommend to use bcache on 64K PAGE_SIZE? or it only
> > considers for 4K PAGE_SIZE for bcache currently?
> > Maybe it is more suitable for me to redefine some macro such as
> > SB_SECTOR, BDEV_DATA_START_DEFAULT to make bcache work correctly on
> > both 64K PAGE_SIZE and 4K PAGE_SIZE.
>
> I think a patch to support arbitrary page size would be great. Can
> you write the macros in terms of PAGE_SIZE or PAGE_SHIFT?
It shouldn't be referencing PAGE_SIZE at all - creating a new macro
(BCH_SB_SIZE, perhaps) is the correct approach.
The code that allocates the buffer for the superblock will have to be fixed
too - right now it's probably using __get_free_page(), it should probably just
be switched to kmalloc().
> (Out of curiosity, what ARM64 hardware are you using?)
>
> Kent, this may affect bcachefs too. Can you think of any other places
> that might have PAGE_SIZE!=4k issues?
Oh, there's probably a couple. There's probably some stuff that'll break if
btree_node_size is smaller than PAGE_SIZE, too...
If it turns out to be too much for Zhengyuan, I can probably fix upstream too
(but I don't have any hardware to test with).
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
