Re: dm: retain stacked max_sectors when setting queue_limits

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

 



On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:27:31AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 12:48:59PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > [   74.872485] blk_insert_cloned_request: over max size limit. (2048 > 1024)
> > [   74.872505] device-mapper: multipath: 254:3: Failing path 8:16.
> > [   74.872620] blk_insert_cloned_request: over max size limit. (2048 > 1024)
> > [   74.872641] device-mapper: multipath: 254:3: Failing path 8:32.
> > [   74.872712] blk_insert_cloned_request: over max size limit. (2048 > 1024)
> > [   74.872732] device-mapper: multipath: 254:3: Failing path 8:48.
> > [   74.872788] blk_insert_cloned_request: over max size limit. (2048 > 1024)
> > [   74.872808] device-mapper: multipath: 254:3: Failing path 8:64.
> > 
> > Simply setting max_user_sectors won't help with stacked devices
> > because blk_stack_limits() doesn't stack max_user_sectors.  It'll
> > inform the underlying device's blk_validate_limits() calculation which
> > will result in max_sectors having the desired value (which it already
> > did, as I showed above).  But when stacking limits from underlying
> > devices up to the higher-level dm-mpath queue_limits we still have
> > information loss.
> 
> So while I can't reproduce it, I think the main issue is that
> max_sectors really just is a voluntary limit, and enforcing that at
> the lower device doesn't really make any sense.  So we could just
> check blk_insert_cloned_request to check max_hw_sectors instead.

I haven't tried your patch but we still want properly stacked
max_sectors configured for the device.

> Or my below preferre variant to just drop the check, as the
> max_sectors == 0 check indicates it's pretty sketchy to start with.

At this point in the 6.10 release I don't want further whack-a-mole
fixes due to fallout from removing longstanding negative checks.

Not sure what is sketchy about the max_sectors == 0 check, the large
comment block explains that check quite well.  We want to avoid EIO
for unsupported operations (otherwise we'll get spurious path failures
in the context of dm-multipath).  Could be we can remove this check
after an audit of how LLD handle servicing IO for unsupported
operations -- so best to work through it during a devel cycle.

Not sure why scsi_debug based testing with mptest isn't triggering it
for you. Are you seeing these limits for the underlying scsi_debug
devices?

./max_hw_sectors_kb:2147483647
./max_sectors_kb:512

What are those limits for the mptest created 'mp' dm-multipath device?

Mike




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

  Powered by Linux