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.
Or my below preferre variant to just drop the check, as the
max_sectors == 0 check indicates it's pretty sketchy to start with.
diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index fc364a226e952f..61b108aa20044d 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -3041,29 +3041,9 @@ void blk_mq_submit_bio(struct bio *bio)
blk_status_t blk_insert_cloned_request(struct request *rq)
{
struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
- unsigned int max_sectors = blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q, req_op(rq));
unsigned int max_segments = blk_rq_get_max_segments(rq);
blk_status_t ret;
- if (blk_rq_sectors(rq) > max_sectors) {
- /*
- * SCSI device does not have a good way to return if
- * Write Same/Zero is actually supported. If a device rejects
- * a non-read/write command (discard, write same,etc.) the
- * low-level device driver will set the relevant queue limit to
- * 0 to prevent blk-lib from issuing more of the offending
- * operations. Commands queued prior to the queue limit being
- * reset need to be completed with BLK_STS_NOTSUPP to avoid I/O
- * errors being propagated to upper layers.
- */
- if (max_sectors == 0)
- return BLK_STS_NOTSUPP;
-
- printk(KERN_ERR "%s: over max size limit. (%u > %u)\n",
- __func__, blk_rq_sectors(rq), max_sectors);
- return BLK_STS_IOERR;
- }
-
/*
* The queue settings related to segment counting may differ from the
* original queue.
>
> Mike
---end quoted text---
