Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751735AbaKFRpZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:45:25 -0500 Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]:43832 "EHLO mail.windriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751193AbaKFRpX (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:45:23 -0500 Message-ID: <545BB3AB.8070409@windriver.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 11:45:15 -0600 From: Chris Friesen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Martin K. Petersen" CC: Jens Axboe , lkml , , Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: absurdly high "optimal_io_size" on Seagate SAS disk References: <545BA625.40308@windriver.com> <545BAD05.3050800@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [147.11.119.46] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/06/2014 11:34 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Friesen writes: > > Chris> Perhaps the ST900MM0026 should be blacklisted as well? > > Sure. I'll widen the net a bit for that Seagate model. That'd work, but is it the best way to go? I mean, I found one report of a similar problem on an SSD (model number unknown). In that case it was a near-UINT_MAX value as well. The problem with the blacklist is that until someone patches it, the drive is broken. And then it stays blacklisted even if the firmware gets fixed. I'm wondering if it might not be better to just ignore all values larger than X (where X is whatever we think is the largest conceivable reasonable value). Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/