On 2020/05/11 20:25, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 5/11/20 12:55 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 2020/05/11 11:46, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> I am still seeing the warning:
>>>
>>> [ 1827.839756] device-mapper: table: 253:1: adding target device sdj caused an
>>> alignment inconsistency: physical_block_size=4096, logical_block_size=4096,
>>> alignment_offset=0, start=0
>>> [ 1827.856738] device-mapper: table: 253:1: adding target device sdj caused an
>>> alignment inconsistency: physical_block_size=4096, logical_block_size=4096,
>>> alignment_offset=0, start=0
>>> [ 1827.874031] device-mapper: table: 253:1: adding target device sdj caused an
>>> alignment inconsistency: physical_block_size=4096, logical_block_size=4096,
>>> alignment_offset=0, start=0
>>> [ 1827.891086] device-mapper: table: 253:1: adding target device sdj caused an
>>> alignment inconsistency: physical_block_size=4096, logical_block_size=4096,
>>> alignment_offset=0, start=0
>>>
>>> when mixing 512B sector and 4KB sector devices. Investigating now.
>>
>>
>> OK. Figured that one out: the 500GB SSD I am using for the regular device is
>> 976773168 512B sectors capacity, that is, not a multiple of the 256MB zone size,
>> and not even a multiple of 4K. This causes the creation of a 12MB runt zone of
>> 24624 sectors, which is ignored. But the start sector of the second device in
>> the dm-table remains 976773168, so not aligned on 4K. This causes
>> bdev_stack_limits to return an error and the above messages to be printed.
>>
>> So I think we need to completely ignore the eventual "runt" zone of the regular
>> device so that everything aligns correctly. This will need changes in both
>> dmzadm and dm-zoned.
>>
>> Hannes, I can hack something on top of your series. Or can you resend with that
>> fixed ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Does this one help?
Nope. Same warning.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-zoned-target.c b/drivers/md/dm-zoned-target.c
> index ea43f6892ced..5daca82b5ec7 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/dm-zoned-target.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-zoned-target.c
> @@ -1041,13 +1041,17 @@ static int dmz_iterate_devices(struct dm_target *ti,
> {
> struct dmz_target *dmz = ti->private;
> unsigned int zone_nr_sectors = dmz_zone_nr_sectors(dmz->metadata);
> + unsigned int nr_zones;
> sector_t capacity;
> int r;
>
> - capacity = dmz->dev[0].capacity & ~(zone_nr_sectors - 1);
> + nr_zones = DIV_ROUND_DOWN(dmz->dev[0].capacity, zone_nr_sectors);
> + capacity = nr_zones * zone_nr_sectors;
capacity = round_down(dmz->dev[0].capacity, zone_nr_sectors);
is simpler :)
In any case, your change does seem to do anything here. Before and after, the
capacity is rounded down to full zones, excluding the last runt zone. I think it
is to do with the table entry start offset given on DM start by dmzadm...
> r = fn(ti, dmz->ddev[0], 0, capacity, data);
> if (!r && dmz->ddev[1]) {
> - capacity = dmz->dev[1].capacity & ~(zone_nr_sectors - 1);
> + nr_zones = DIV_ROUND_DOWN(dmz->dev[1.capacity,
> + zone_nr_sectors));
> + capacity = nr_zones * zone_nr_sectors;
> r = fn(ti, dmz->ddev[1], 0, capacity, data);
> }
> return r;
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hannes
>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
