[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] RAID/block regression starting from 2.6.32, bisected



On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:29:30 +0200
Tejun Heo <tj kernel org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On 07/28/2010 08:16 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> > In recent kernels we are experiencing a problem that in our setup
> > using SCST BLOCKIO backend some BIOs are finished, i.e. the finish
> > callback called for them, with error -EIO. It happens quite often,
> > much more often than one would expect to have an actual IO
> > error. (BLOCKIO backend just converts all incoming SCSI commands to
> > the corresponding block requests.)
> > 
> > After some investigation, we figured out, that, most likely,
> > raid5.c::make_request() for some reason sometimes calls bio_endio()
> > with not BIO_UPTODATE bios.
> > 
> > We bisected it to commit: 
> > 
> > commit a82afdfcb8c0df09776b6458af6b68fc58b2e87b
> > Author: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
> > Date:   Fri Jul 3 17:48:16 2009 +0900
> > 
> >     block: use the same failfast bits for bio and request
> 
> That commit doesn't (or at least isn't supposed to) make any behavior
> difference.  It's just repositioning flag bits.  If the commit is
> actually causing the problem, I think one possibility is that whatever
> code could be using hard coded constants which now are mapped to
> different flags.  The mixed merge changes have been in mainline for
> quite some time and shipping in all major distros too and this is the
> first time this is reported, so I don't think it could be a widespread
> problem.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

The problem is that md/raid5 tests bio->bi_rw against RWA_MASK, which used to
align with BIO_RW_AHEAD, and now doesn't.
However the definition of bio_rw() in fs.h seems to justify that RWA_MASK
should align with BIO_RW_AHEAD, as does the definition of READA.

Given the current definitions, any WRITE request with BIO_RW_FAILFAST_DEV
set is going to confused a number of drives which test
     bio_rw(bio) == WRITE

I guess RWA_MASK needs to be changed to (1<<BIO_RW_AHEAD), and READA need to
be change to that value too.

Can I leave that to you Tejun?

Thanks,
NeilBrown


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]