On 11/25/2015 07:01 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25 2015 at 4:04am -0500,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/20/2015 04:28 PM, Ewan Milne wrote:
On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 15:55 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
Can't we have a joint effort here?
I've been spending a _LOT_ of time trying to debug things here, but
none of the ideas I've come up with have been able to fix anything.
Yes. I'm not the one primarily looking at it, and we don't have a
reproducer in-house. We just have the one dump right now.
I'm almost tempted to increase the count from scsi_alloc_sgtable()
by one and be done with ...
That might not fix it if it is a problem with the merge code, though.
And indeed, it doesn't.
How did you arrive at that? Do you have a reproducer now?
Not a reproducer, but several dumps for analysis.
Seems I finally found the culprit.
What happens is this:
We have two paths, with these seg_boundary_masks:
path-1: seg_boundary_mask = 65535,
path-2: seg_boundary_mask = 4294967295,
consequently the DM request queue has this:
md-1: seg_boundary_mask = 65535,
What happens now is that a request is being formatted, and sent
to path 2. During submission req->nr_phys_segments is formatted
with the limits of path 2, arriving at a count of 3.
Now the request gets retried on path 1, but as the NOMERGE request
flag is set req->nr_phys_segments is never updated.
But blk_rq_map_sg() ignores all counters, and just uses the
bi_vec directly, resulting in a count of 4 -> boom.
So the culprit here is the NOMERGE flag,
NOMERGE is always set in __blk_rq_prep_clone() for cloned requests.
Yes.
which is evaluated via
->dm_dispatch_request()
->blk_insert_cloned_request()
->blk_rq_check_limits()
blk_insert_cloned_request() is the only caller of blk_rq_check_limits();
anyway after reading your mail I'm still left wondering if your proposed
patch is correct.
If the above assessment is correct, the following patch should
fix it:
diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
index 801ced7..12cccd6 100644
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@ -1928,7 +1928,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(submit_bio);
*/
int blk_rq_check_limits(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
{
- if (!rq_mergeable(rq))
+ if (rq->cmd_type != REQ_TYPE_FS)
return 0;
if (blk_rq_sectors(rq) > blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q,
rq->cmd_flags)) {
Mike? Jens?
Can you comment on it?
You're not explaining the actual change in the patch very well; I think
you're correct but you're leaving the justification as an exercise to
the reviewer:
blk_rq_check_limits() will call blk_recalc_rq_segments() after the
!rq_mergeable() check but you're saying for this case in question we
never get there -- due to the cloned request having NOMERGE set.
So in blk_rq_check_limits() you've unrolled rq_mergeable() and
open-coded the lone remaining check (rq->cmd_type != REQ_TYPE_FS)
I agree that the (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_NOMERGE_FLAGS) check in
the blk_insert_cloned_request() call-chain (via rq_mergeable()) makes no
sense for cloned requests that always have NOMERGE set.
So you're saying that by having blk_rq_check_limits() go on to call
blk_recalc_rq_segments() this bug will be fixed?
That is the idea.
I've already established that in all instances I have seen so far
req->nr_phys_segments is _less_ than req->bio->bi_phys_segments.
As it turns out, req->nr_phys_segemnts _would_ have been updated in
blk_rq_check_limits(), but isn't due to the NOMERGE flag being set
for the cloned request.
So each cloned request inherits the values from the original request,
despite the fact that req->nr_phys_segments _has_ to be evaluated in
the final request_queue context, as the queue limits _might_ be
different from the original (merged) queue limits of the multipath
request queue.
BTW, I think blk_rq_check_limits()'s export should be removed and the
function made static and renamed to blk_clone_rq_check_limits(), again:
blk_insert_cloned_request() is the only caller of blk_rq_check_limits()
Actually, seeing Jens' last comment the check for REQ_TYPE_FS is
pointless, too, so we might as well remove the entire if-clause.
Seems prudent to make that change now to be clear that this code is only
used by cloned requests.
Yeah, that would make sense. I'll be preparing a patch.
With a more detailed description :-)
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
