Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> writes:
> 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?
I refuse to do that! .... since Xiao beat me to it! Thanks!
I was half way bisecting my way through it last night. For some reason
the problem was reproducible in 4.2 if I applied the offending patch,
but not in 4.3-rc2.
Any chance you'll push these to your git tree in the near future?
Thanks!
Jes
--
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
