Re: dm-raid: stack limits instead of overwriting them.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:24 PM John Dorminy <jdorminy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I am impressed at how much I read wrong...
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:00 PM Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 24 2020 at 12:45pm -0400,
> > John Dorminy <jdorminy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't understand how this works...
> > >
> > > Can chunk_size_bytes be 0? If not, how is discard_granularity being set to 0?
> >
> > Yeah, I had same question.. see the reply I just sent in this thread:
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2020-September/msg00568.html
> >
> > > I think also limits is local to the ti in question here, initialized
> > > by blk_set_stacking_limits() via dm-table.c, and therefore has only
> > > default values and not anything to do with the underlying queue. So
> > > setting discard_granularity=max(discard_granularity, chunk_size_bytes)
> > > doesn't seem like it should be working, unless I'm not understanding
> > > what it's there for...
> >
> > You're reading the dm-table.c limits stacking wrong.  Of course DM stack
> > up the underlying device(s) limits ;)
>
> Yep, I failed to read iterate_devices...
>
> >
> > >
> > > And shouldn't melding in the target's desired io_hints into the
> > > existing queue limits be happening in blk_stack_limits() instead?
> > > (Also, it does lcm_not_zero() for stacking granularity, instead of
> > > max()...)
> > >
> >
> > DM core does do that, the .io_hints hook in the DM target is reserved
> > for when the target has additional constraints that blk_stack_limits()
> > didn't/couldn't factor in.
> Yes, I had erroneously thought the limit-stacking was after getting
> the targets' individual limits, not before.
>
> >
> > And blk_stack_limts() does use max() for discard_granularity.
> ... I'm just terrible at reading this morning.
>
> Thanks for pointing out all the things I misread!

Actually, though, I don't understand why it should be max instead of
lcm_not_zero(). If the raid's chunk size is 1024 sectors, say, and
you're constructing it on something that has discard_granularity 812
sectors, say, blkdev_issue_discard will be generating 1024 sector IOs
which will work poorly when passed down to the 812-sector-granularity
underlying device. While, if lcm(812,1024) were used, lcm(812,1024)
sector IOs would be compatible with both the chunk size and underlying
device's granularity, perhaps? Maybe I'm missing something, but I read
the doc and code an extra time around this time ;)

>
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:29 PM Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patch fixes a warning WARN_ON_ONCE(!q->limits.discard_granularity).
> > > > The reason is that the function raid_io_hints overwrote
> > > > limits->discard_granularity with zero. We need to properly stack the
> > > > limits instead of overwriting them.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/md/dm-raid.c |    4 ++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm-raid.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/md/dm-raid.c 2020-09-24 18:16:45.000000000 +0200
> > > > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm-raid.c      2020-09-24 18:16:45.000000000 +0200
> > > > @@ -3734,8 +3734,8 @@ static void raid_io_hints(struct dm_targ
> > > >          * RAID0/4/5/6 don't and process large discard bios properly.
> > > >          */
> > > >         if (rs_is_raid1(rs) || rs_is_raid10(rs)) {
> > > > -               limits->discard_granularity = chunk_size_bytes;
> > > > -               limits->max_discard_sectors = rs->md.chunk_sectors;
> > > > +               limits->discard_granularity = max(limits->discard_granularity, chunk_size_bytes);
> > > > +               limits->max_discard_sectors = min_not_zero(limits->max_discard_sectors, (unsigned)rs->md.chunk_sectors);
> > > >         }
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > dm-devel mailing list
> > > > dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
> > > >
> > >
> >

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel




[Index of Archives]     [DM Crypt]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux