| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c3227c8f-c782-7685-c3eb-af558a082399@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 00:09:27 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...il.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 13/45] block: blk-merge: try to make front segments in
full size
On 18.12.2017 15:22, Ming Lei wrote:
> When merging one bvec into segment, if the bvec is too big
> to merge, current policy is to move the whole bvec into another
> new segment.
>
> This patchset changes the policy into trying to maximize size of
> front segments, that means in above situation, part of bvec
> is merged into current segment, and the remainder is put
> into next segment.
>
> This patch prepares for support multipage bvec because
> it can be quite common to see this case and we should try
> to make front segments in full size.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
> ---
> block/blk-merge.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c
> index a476337a8ff4..42ceb89bc566 100644
> --- a/block/blk-merge.c
> +++ b/block/blk-merge.c
> @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ static struct bio *blk_bio_segment_split(struct request_queue *q,
> bool do_split = true;
> struct bio *new = NULL;
> const unsigned max_sectors = get_max_io_size(q, bio);
> + unsigned advance = 0;
>
> bio_for_each_segment(bv, bio, iter) {
> /*
> @@ -134,12 +135,32 @@ static struct bio *blk_bio_segment_split(struct request_queue *q,
> }
>
> if (bvprvp && blk_queue_cluster(q)) {
> - if (seg_size + bv.bv_len > queue_max_segment_size(q))
> - goto new_segment;
> if (!BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(bvprvp, &bv))
> goto new_segment;
> if (!BIOVEC_SEG_BOUNDARY(q, bvprvp, &bv))
> goto new_segment;
> + if (seg_size + bv.bv_len > queue_max_segment_size(q)) {
> + /*
> + * On assumption is that initial value of
> + * @seg_size(equals to bv.bv_len) won't be
> + * bigger than max segment size, but will
> + * becomes false after multipage bvec comes.
> + */
> + advance = queue_max_segment_size(q) - seg_size;
> +
> + if (advance > 0) {
> + seg_size += advance;
> + sectors += advance >> 9;
> + bv.bv_len -= advance;
> + bv.bv_offset += advance;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Still need to put remainder of current
> + * bvec into a new segment.
> + */
> + goto new_segment;
> + }
>
> seg_size += bv.bv_len;
> bvprv = bv;
> @@ -161,6 +182,12 @@ static struct bio *blk_bio_segment_split(struct request_queue *q,
> seg_size = bv.bv_len;
> sectors += bv.bv_len >> 9;
>
> + /* restore the bvec for iterator */
> + if (advance) {
> + bv.bv_len += advance;
> + bv.bv_offset -= advance;
> + advance = 0;
> + }
> }
>
> do_split = false;
> @@ -361,16 +388,29 @@ __blk_segment_map_sg(struct request_queue *q, struct bio_vec *bvec,
> {
>
> int nbytes = bvec->bv_len;
> + unsigned advance = 0;
>
> if (*sg && *cluster) {
> - if ((*sg)->length + nbytes > queue_max_segment_size(q))
> - goto new_segment;
> -
> if (!BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(bvprv, bvec))
> goto new_segment;
> if (!BIOVEC_SEG_BOUNDARY(q, bvprv, bvec))
> goto new_segment;
>
> + /*
> + * try best to merge part of the bvec into previous
> + * segment and follow same policy with
> + * blk_bio_segment_split()
> + */
> + if ((*sg)->length + nbytes > queue_max_segment_size(q)) {
> + advance = queue_max_segment_size(q) - (*sg)->length;
> + if (advance) {
> + (*sg)->length += advance;
> + bvec->bv_offset += advance;
> + bvec->bv_len -= advance;
> + }
> + goto new_segment;
> + }
> +
> (*sg)->length += nbytes;
> } else {
> new_segment:
> @@ -393,6 +433,10 @@ __blk_segment_map_sg(struct request_queue *q, struct bio_vec *bvec,
>
> sg_set_page(*sg, bvec->bv_page, nbytes, bvec->bv_offset);
> (*nsegs)++;
> +
> + /* for making iterator happy */
> + bvec->bv_offset -= advance;
> + bvec->bv_len += advance;
> }
> *bvprv = *bvec;
> }
>
Hello,
This patch breaks MMC on next-20180108, in particular MMC doesn't work anymore
with this patch on NVIDIA Tegra20:
<3>[ 36.622253] print_req_error: I/O error, dev mmcblk1, sector 512
<3>[ 36.671233] print_req_error: I/O error, dev mmcblk2, sector 128
<3>[ 36.711308] print_req_error: I/O error, dev mmcblk1, sector 31325304
<3>[ 36.749232] print_req_error: I/O error, dev mmcblk2, sector 512
<3>[ 36.761235] print_req_error: I/O error, dev mmcblk1, sector 31325816
<3>[ 36.832039] print_req_error: I/O error, dev mmcblk2, sector 31259768
<3>[ 99.793248] print_req_error: I/O error, dev mmcblk1, sector 31323136
<3>[ 99.982043] print_req_error: I/O error, dev mmcblk1, sector 929792
<3>[ 99.986301] print_req_error: I/O error, dev mmcblk1, sector 930816
<3>[ 100.293624] print_req_error: I/O error, dev mmcblk1, sector 932864
<3>[ 100.466839] print_req_error: I/O error, dev mmcblk1, sector 947200
<3>[ 100.642955] print_req_error: I/O error, dev mmcblk1, sector 949248
<3>[ 100.818838] print_req_error: I/O error, dev mmcblk1, sector 230400
Any attempt of mounting MMC block dev ends with a kernel crash. Reverting this
patch fixes the issue.
--
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists