[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1222959814.3222.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:03:33 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] BUG: nr_phys_segments cannot be less than
nr_hw_segments
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 19:59 +0530, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote:
> This is a follow-up to my earlier mail http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/23/294
> ([PATCH] BUG: ll_merge_requests_fn() updates req->nr_phys_segments wrongly)
>
> It is possible for the merging code to create lesser no of phys segments than
> hw segments, but every hw segment needs atleast one new phys segment. This
> triggers the BUG() on scsi_init_sgtable() as blk_rq_map_sg() returns more no
> of segments than rq->nr_phys_segments
>
> The following blktrace shows a sequence of bio's to trigger such condition on
> my machine with max_sectors_kb=512 & max_hw_sectors_kb=32767.
Um, don't you mean this the other way around? I can see this problem
occurring if the block layer gets tricked into doing a physical merge
where sector limits forbid a virtual merge.
The bug would appear to be that we sometimes only look at q->max_sectors
when deciding on mergability. Either we have to insist on max_sectors
<= hw_max_sectors, or we have to start using min(q->max_sectors,
q->max_hw_sectors) for this.
James
--
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