Re: [dm-devel] Re: device mapper not reporting no-barrier-support?

From: Jens Axboe
Date: Tue Feb 26 2008 - 14:41:50 EST


On Tue, Feb 26 2008, Anders Henke wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26 2008 Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26 2008, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 03:20:50PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:26:15 +0100 Anders Henke <anders.henke@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > I'm currently stuck between Kernel LVM and DRBD, as I'm using Kernel
> > > > > 2.6.24.2 with DRBD 8.2.5 on top of an LVM2 device (LV).
> > > > > -LVM2/device mapper doesn't support write barriers
> > >
> > > That's right.
> > >
> > > > > -DRBD uses blkdev_issue_flush() to flush its metadata to disk.
> > >
> > > Which won't work if device-mapper is underneath.
> > >
> > > > > On a no-barrier-device, DRBD should receive EOPNOTSUPP, but
> > > > > it really does receive an EIO. Promptly, DRBD gives the
> > > > > error message "drbd0: local disk flush failed with status -5".
> > > > > I've posted a lengty summary of my findings to
> > > > > http://lists.linbit.com/pipermail/drbd-user/2008-February/008665.html
> > > > > ... that DRBD does catch the EOPNOTSUPP for blkdev_issue_flush and
> > > > > BIO_RW_BARRIER, but the lvm implementation of blkdev_issue_flush in
> > > > > 2.6.24.2 aparently does return EIO for blkdev_issue_flush.
> > > > I'd say it's a DM bug.
> > >
> > > The dm code is unchanged, but look at the limited endio handling in
> > > ll_rw_blk.c:
> > >
> > > static void bio_end_empty_barrier(struct bio *bio, int err)
> > > {
> > > if (err)
> > > clear_bit(BIO_UPTODATE, &bio->bi_flags);
> > >
> > > complete(bio->bi_private);
> > > }
> > >
> > > int blkdev_issue_flush(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t *error_sector)
> > > {
> > > ...
> > > wait_for_completion(&wait);
> > > if (error_sector)
> > > *error_sector = bio->bi_sector;
> > > ret = 0;
> > > if (!bio_flagged(bio, BIO_UPTODATE))
> > > ret = -EIO;
> >
> > You are right, the return value got broken there. Does this make it
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP properly for you?
>
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
>
>
> I've applied your patch manually, as 2.6.24.2. doesn't have a "blk-barrier.c":
>
> ---cut
> --- linux-2.6.24.2/block/ll_rw_blk.c.prepatch 2008-02-11
> 06:51:11.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.24.2/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2008-02-26 20:02:28.514641620
> +0100
> @@ -2667,8 +2667,11 @@
>
> static void bio_end_empty_barrier(struct bio *bio, int err)
> {
> - if (err)
> + if (err) {
> + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> + set_bit(BIO_EOPNOTSUPP, &bio->bi_flags);
> clear_bit(BIO_UPTODATE, &bio->bi_flags);
> + }
>
> complete(bio->bi_private);
> }
> ---cut
>
> ... and the resulting kernel shows exactly the same behaviour than before:

Not surprising, as you missed half of the patch:

> > @@ -309,7 +312,9 @@ int blkdev_issue_flush(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t *error_sector)
> > *error_sector = bio->bi_sector;
> >
> > ret = 0;
> > - if (!bio_flagged(bio, BIO_UPTODATE))
> > + if (bio_flagged(bio, BIO_EOPNOTSUPP))
> > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + else if (!bio_flagged(bio, BIO_UPTODATE))
> > ret = -EIO;
> >
> > bio_put(bio);

--
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/