On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 21:14 +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Bottomley [mailto:jbottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 12:57 PM > > To: KY Srinivasan > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; apw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ohering@xxxxxxxx; jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Filter WRITE_SAME_16 > > > > On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 19:52 +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 1:43 AM > > > > To: KY Srinivasan > > > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > > ohering@xxxxxxxx; jbottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx; > > > > apw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > > stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Filter > > > > WRITE_SAME_16 > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:46:48PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote: > > > > > Host does not handle WRITE_SAME_16; filter this command out. This > > > > > patch is required to handle large devices (greater than 2 TB disks). > > > > > > > > Storvsc already sets the no_write_same flag, where is the command > > > > coming from? > > > > > > In spite of this flag, I see WRITE_SAME_16 being issued when I format > > > a device bigger than 2 TB; I tried both xfs and ext4. Windows hosts > > > currently do not handle unsupported commands correctly - The > > > information returned is not sufficient to effect recovery in the Linux guest. > > While this may be addressed in future hosts, this patch fixes the problem. > > > > What Christoph means is that this looks like a bug somewhere in SCSI itself. > > That means we need to find it and kill it, not add workarounds to every driver > > that sets no_write_same ... > > James, > > I will try to isolate this issue in the SCSI stack. If it is ok with you guys, I would still want to filter WRITE_SAME_16 > (as we currently do WRITE_SAME) in our driver since this would address the problem for a large number of > customers on our platform. If we fix it at source, why would there be any need to filter? That's the reason the no_write_same flag was introduced. If we can find and fix the bug, it can go back into the stable trees as a bug fix, hence nothing should ever emit write_same(10 or 16) and additional driver code is redundant (and counter productive, since if this ever breaks again you're our best canary). This looks like it might be the problem but Martin should confirm (I think the problem comes to us from the RC16 code which unconditionally sets WS16). James --- diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c index 6825eda..8353a4c 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c @@ -634,6 +634,23 @@ static void sd_config_discard(struct scsi_disk *sdkp, unsigned int mode) max(sdkp->physical_block_size, sdkp->unmap_granularity * logical_block_size); + if (sdkp->device->host->no_write_same) { + switch(mode) { + + case SD_LBP_WS16: + case SD_LBP_WS10: + case SD_LBP_ZERO: + /* + * filter out all the WRITE SAME modes and map them + * directly to UNMAP + */ + mode = SD_LBP_UNMAP; + /* fall through */ + default: + /* everything else is OK */ + break; + } + } sdkp->provisioning_mode = mode; switch (mode) { _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
