[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi==tc5q7tR0OZfBtvm1KMCbVO45LRHu6Em52bOy@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 01:26:06 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...il.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...ia.com>,
linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable@...nel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: prevent merges of discard and write requests
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>> On 2010-09-27 12:30, Kyle McMartin wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:40:48PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 2010-09-25 12:36, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>>> Add logic to prevent two I/O requests being merged if
>>>>> only one of them is a discard. Ditto secure discard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without this fix, it is possible for write requests
>>>>> to transform into discard requests. For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> Submit bio 1 to discard 8 sectors from sector n
>>>>> Submit bio 2 to write 8 sectors from sector n + 16
>>>>> Submit bio 3 to write 8 sectors from sector n + 8
>>>>>
>>>>> Bio 1 becomes request 1. Bio 2 becomes request 2.
>>>>> Bio 3 is merged with request 2, and then subsequently
>>>>> request 2 is merged with request 1 resulting in just
>>>>> one I/O request which discards all 24 sectors.
>>>>
>>>> Wow, that's a disaster. We can now have requests in the
>>>> same direction and of the same type (fs), but not mergeable.
>>>>
>>>> I would move the check up above the position calculations.
>>>> I will apply this and upstream it right away. Thanks a lot!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jens, is this (the REQ_DISCARD hunk) required for stable as well? It
>>> appears there's not much change relating to merging requests between
>>> HEAD and v2.6.35, so I assume it is?
>>
>> No, 2.6.35 and earlier is safe, it's only 2.6.36-rc that is
>> affected by this bug.
>
> I'm not so sure... I think 2.6.35 is affected. Jens, what do you hold
> to be the regression point?
...
> But things really broke once we started playing games with barrier
> flags associated with discards. The regression point (relative to
> discard merging) seems to have occurred when we got away from using
> REQ_SOFTBARRIER with commit: fbbf055692aeb "block: fix DISCARD_BARRIER
> requests". Which was still committed to v2.6.35...
OK I take that back, with commit fbbf055692aeb REQ_HARDBARRIER is used
for discards.. which is equally applicable to !rq_mergeable().
Anyway, I'd still like to understand what you feel is the regression point.
Mike
--
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