linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 05/11] block: remove split code in blkdev_issue_{discard,write

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1445447902.26847.3.camel@ssi>
Date:	Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:18:22 -0700
From:	Ming Lin <mlin@...nel.org>
To:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
	Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Ming Lin <ming.l@....samsung.com>,
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/11] block: remove split code in
 blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same}

On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 11:33 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21 2015 at 11:01am -0400,
> Ming Lin <mlin@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 09:39 -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > > Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Jens, Ming:
> > > >
> > > > are you fine with the one liner change to get back to the old I/O
> > > > pattern?  While it looks like the cards fault I'd like to avoid this
> > > > annoying regression.
> > > 
> > > I'm not Jens or Ming, but your patch looks fine to me, though you'll
> > > want to remove the MAX_BIO_SECTORS definition since it's now unused.
> > > It's not clear to me why the limit was lowered in the first place.
> > 
> > UINT_MAX >> 9 is not power of 2 and it causes dm-thinp discard fails.
> > 
> > At the lengthy discussion:
> > [PATCH v5 01/11] block: make generic_make_request handle arbitrarily sized bios
> > We agreed to cap discard to 2G as an interim solution for 4.3 until the
> > dm-thinp discard code is rewritten.
> 
> But did Jens ever commit that change to cap at 2G?  I don't recall
> seeing it.

Yes, commit b49a0871

> 
> > Hi Mike,
> > 
> > Will the dm-thinp discard rewritten ready for 4.4?
> 
> No.  I'm not clear what needs changing in dm-thinp.  I'll have to
> revisit the thread to refresh my memory.
> 
> BTW, DM thinp can easily handle discards that aren't a power-of-2 so
> long as the requested discard is a factor of the thinp blocksize.

You are right. It's not about power-of-2.

Copy my old post here about why dm-thinp discard may fail with "UINT_MAX
>> 9".

      4G: 8388608 sectors
UINT_MAX: 8388607 sectors

dm-thinp block size = default discard granularity = 128 sectors

blkdev_issue_discard(sector=0, nr_sectors=8388608)

[start_sector, end_sector]
[0, 8388607]
    [0, 8388606], then dm-thinp splits it to 2 bios
        [0, 8388479]
        [8388480, 8388606] ---> this has problem in process_discard_bio(),
                                because the discard size(7 sectors) covers less than a block(128 sectors)
    [8388607, 8388607] ---> same problem 


--
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/