[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080716003047P.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:30:43 +0900
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To: mpatocka@...hat.com
Cc: fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix q->max_segment_size checking in
blk_recalc_rq_segments about VMERGE
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:37:58 -0400 (EDT)
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>> This bug could happen on alpha, parisc, and sparc, which use VMERGE.
> >>
> >> Parisc doesn't use virtual merge accounting (there is variable for it but
> >> it's always 0).
> >
> > Hmm, really? Looks like PARISC IOMMUs (ccio-dma.c and sba_iomm.c) set
> > parisc_vmerge_boundary (CC'ed PARISC mailing list).
>
> That's right, I looked only at arch and include.
>
> >> On sparc64 it is broken anyway with or without your patch.
> >
> > Yeah, we need to modify SPARC64 IOMMU code (I'm not sure that it's
> > worth). Right now, the best fix is setting BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY to 0.
>
> Even if we fix it now, the question is: how long it will stay fixed? Until
> someone makes another change to struct device that restricts boundaries on
> some wacky hardware.
I'm not sure how the boundary restriction of a device can break
the VMERGE accounting.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists