----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neil Brown" <neilb@xxxxxxx>
> To: "Jes Sorensen" <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Xiao Ni" <xni@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-raid" <linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, yizhan@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 10:53:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Bad raid0 bio too large problem
>
> Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> writes:
> >> Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >>> Hi Neil,
> >>>
> >>> I think we have some bad side effects with this patch:
> >>>
> >>> commit 199dc6ed5179251fa6158a461499c24bdd99c836
> >>> Author: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>
> >>> Date: Mon Aug 3 13:11:47 2015 +1000
> >>>
> >>> md/raid0: update queue parameter in a safer location.
> >>>
> >>> When a (e.g.) RAID5 array is reshaped to RAID0, the updating
> >>> of queue parameters (e.g. max number of sectors per bio) is
> >>> done in the wrong place.
> >>> It should be part of ->run, but it is actually part of ->takeover.
> >>> This means it happens before level_store() calls:
> >>>
> >>> blk_set_stacking_limits(&mddev->queue->limits);
> >>>
> >>> Running the '03r0assem' test suite fills my kernel log with output like
> >>> below. Yi Zhang also had issues where writes failed too.
> >>>
> >>> robably something we need to resolve for 4.2-final or revert the
> >>> offending patch.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Jes
> >>>
> >>> md: bind<loop0>
> >>> md: bind<loop1>
> >>> md: bind<loop2>
> >>> md/raid0:md2: md_size is 116736 sectors.
> >>> md: RAID0 configuration for md2 - 1 zone
> >>> md: zone0=[loop0/loop1/loop2]
> >>> zone-offset= 0KB, device-offset= 0KB, size=
> >>> 58368KB
> >>>
> >>> md2: detected capacity change from 0 to 59768832
> >>> bio too big device loop0 (296 > 255)
> >>> bio too big device loop0 (272 > 255)
> >>
> >> 1/ Why do you blame that particular patch?
> >>
> >> 2/ Where is that error message coming from? I cannot find "bio too big"
> >> in the kernel (except in a comment).
> >> Commit: 54efd50bfd87 ("block: make generic_make_request handle
> >> arbitrarily sized bios")
> >> removed the only instance of the error message that I know of.
> >>
> >> Which kernel exactly are you testing?
> >
> > I blame it because of bisect - I revert that patch and the issue goes
> > away.
> >
> > I checked out 199dc6ed5179251fa6158a461499c24bdd99c836 in Linus' tree,
> > see the bio too large. I revert it and it goes away.
>
> Well that's pretty convincing - thanks.
> And as you say - it is tagged for -stable so really needs to be fixed.
>
> Stares at the code again. And again.
>
> Ahhh. that patch moved the
> blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(mddev->queue, mddev->chunk_sectors);
> to after
> disk_stack_limits(...);
>
> That is wrong.
>
> Could you confirm that this fixes your test?
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid0.c b/drivers/md/raid0.c
> index 4a13c3cb940b..0875e5e7e09a 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid0.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid0.c
> @@ -431,12 +431,6 @@ static int raid0_run(struct mddev *mddev)
> struct md_rdev *rdev;
> bool discard_supported = false;
>
> - rdev_for_each(rdev, mddev) {
> - disk_stack_limits(mddev->gendisk, rdev->bdev,
> - rdev->data_offset << 9);
> - if (blk_queue_discard(bdev_get_queue(rdev->bdev)))
> - discard_supported = true;
> - }
> blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(mddev->queue, mddev->chunk_sectors);
> blk_queue_max_write_same_sectors(mddev->queue, mddev->chunk_sectors);
> blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(mddev->queue, mddev->chunk_sectors);
> @@ -445,6 +439,12 @@ static int raid0_run(struct mddev *mddev)
> blk_queue_io_opt(mddev->queue,
> (mddev->chunk_sectors << 9) * mddev->raid_disks);
>
> + rdev_for_each(rdev, mddev) {
> + disk_stack_limits(mddev->gendisk, rdev->bdev,
> + rdev->data_offset << 9);
> + if (blk_queue_discard(bdev_get_queue(rdev->bdev)))
> + discard_supported = true;
> + }
> if (!discard_supported)
> queue_flag_clear_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, mddev->queue);
> else
>
Hi Neil, Jes
The problem is fixed with this patch.
Best Regards
Xiao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
