On Mon 25 Mar 2013 15:24:57 CET, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25 2013, Jan Vesely wrote:
>> v2: changed a comment
>>
>> The original behavior was to refuse all pages after the maximum number of
>> segments has been reached. However, some drivers (like st) craft their buffers
>> to potentially require exactly max segments and multiple pages in the last
>> segment. This patch modifies the check to allow pages that can be merged into
>> the last segment.
>>
>> Fixes EBUSY failures when using large tape block size in high
>> memory fragmentation condition.
>> This regression was introduced by commit
>> 46081b166415acb66d4b3150ecefcd9460bb48a1
>> st: Increase success probability in driver buffer allocation
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Vesely <jvesely@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> CC: Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> CC: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> CC: Kai Makisara <kai.makisara@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> CC: James Bottomley <james.bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> CC: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
>> CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ---
>> fs/bio.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/bio.c b/fs/bio.c
>> index bb5768f..bc6af71 100644
>> --- a/fs/bio.c
>> +++ b/fs/bio.c
>> @@ -500,7 +500,6 @@ static int __bio_add_page(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio, struct page
>> *page, unsigned int len, unsigned int offset,
>> unsigned short max_sectors)
>> {
>> - int retried_segments = 0;
>> struct bio_vec *bvec;
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -551,18 +550,13 @@ static int __bio_add_page(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio, struct page
>> return 0;
>>
>> /*
>> - * we might lose a segment or two here, but rather that than
>> - * make this too complex.
>> + * The first part of the segment count check,
>> + * reduce segment count if possible
>> */
>>
>> - while (bio->bi_phys_segments >= queue_max_segments(q)) {
>> -
>> - if (retried_segments)
>> - return 0;
>> -
>> - retried_segments = 1;
>> + if (bio->bi_phys_segments >= queue_max_segments(q))
>> blk_recount_segments(q, bio);
>> - }
>> +
>>
>> /*
>> * setup the new entry, we might clear it again later if we
>> @@ -572,6 +566,19 @@ static int __bio_add_page(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio, struct page
>> bvec->bv_page = page;
>> bvec->bv_len = len;
>> bvec->bv_offset = offset;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * the other part of the segment count check, allow mergeable pages
>> + */
>> + if ((bio->bi_phys_segments > queue_max_segments(q)) ||
>> + ( (bio->bi_phys_segments == queue_max_segments(q)) &&
>> + !BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(bvec - 1, bvec))) {
>> + bvec->bv_page = NULL;
>> + bvec->bv_len = 0;
>> + bvec->bv_offset = 0;
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>
> This is a bit messy, I think. bi_phys_segments should never be allowed
> to go beyond queue_ma_segments(), so the > test does not look right.
> Maybe it's an artifact of when we fall through with this patch, we bump
> bi_phys_segments even if the segments are physicall contig and
> mergeable.
yeah. it is messy, I tried to go for the least invasive changes.
I took the '>' test from the original while loop '>='. The original
behavior
guaranteed bio->bi_phys_segments <= max_segments, if the bio satisfied
this condition to begin with.
I did not find any guarantees that the 'bio' parameter of this function
has
to satisfy this condition in general.
My understanding is that if a caller of this function (or one of the
two that call this one)
provides an invalid (segment-count-wise) bio, it will fail (return 0
added length),
and let the caller handle the situation.
I admit, I did not check all the call paths that use these functions.
>
> What happens when the segment is physically mergeable, but the resulting
> merged segment is too large (bigger than q->limits.max_segment_size)?
>
ah, yes. I guess I need a check that follows __blk_recalc_rq_segments
more closely.
We know that at this point all pages are merged into segments, so a
helper function that would be used
by both __blk_recalc_rq_segments and this check is possible.
I still assume that a temporary increase of bi_phys_segments above
max_segments is ok.
If we want to avoid this situation we would need to merge tail pages
right away. That's imo uglier.
thanks
--
Jan Vesely <jvesely@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
