On Wed, Nov 25 2015 at 2:24pm -0500,
Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/25/2015 12:10 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >On 11/25/2015 06:56 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>On 11/25/2015 02:04 AM, Hannes Reinecke 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.
> >>>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, which is evaluated
> >>>via
> >>>->dm_dispatch_request()
> >>> ->blk_insert_cloned_request()
> >>> ->blk_rq_check_limits()
> >>>
> >>>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?
> >>
> >>We only support merging on REQ_TYPE_FS already, so how is the above
> >>making it any different? In general, NOMERGE being set or not should not
> >>make a difference. It's only a hint that we need not check further if we
> >>should be merging on this request, since we already tried it once, found
> >>we'd exceed various limits, then set NOMERGE to reflect that.
> >>
> >The problem is that NOMERGE does too much, as it inhibits _any_ merging.
>
> Right, that is the point of the flag from the block layer view,
> where it was originally added for the case mentioned.
And we really don't want _any_ merging. The merging, if any, will have
already happened in upper DM-multipath's elevator. So there should be
no need to have the underlying SCSI paths do any merging.
> >Unfortunately, the req->nr_phys_segments value is evaluated in the final
> >_driver_ context _after_ the merging happend; cf
> >scsi_lib.c:scsi_init_sgtable().
> >As nr_phys_segments is inherited from the original request (and never
> >recalculated with the new request queue limits) the following
> >blk_rq_map_sg() call might end up at a different calculation, especially
> >after retrying a request on another path.
>
> That all sounds pretty horrible. Why is blk_rq_check_limits()
> checking for mergeable at all? If merging is disabled on the
> request, I'm assuming that's an attempt at an optimization since we
> know it won't change. But that should be tracked separately, like
> how it's done on the bio.
Not clear to me why it was checking for merging...
--
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
