Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932238AbVJQJuy (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 05:50:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932236AbVJQJuy (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 05:50:54 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:3951 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932238AbVJQJux (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 05:50:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:51:33 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: li nux Cc: Grzegorz Kulewski , Erik Mouw , colin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: A problem about DIRECT IO on ext3 Message-ID: <20051017095133.GU2811@suse.de> References: <20051017091710.GT2811@suse.de> <20051017094140.14685.qmail@web33301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051017094140.14685.qmail@web33301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2084 Lines: 68 On Mon, Oct 17 2005, li nux wrote: > > > --- Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 17 2005, Grzegorz Kulewski wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > >>how to correct this problem ? > > > > > > > >See your buffer address, it's not aligned. You > > need to align that as > > > >well. This is needed because the hardware will > > dma directly to the user > > > >buffer, and to be on the safe side we require the > > same alignment as the > > > >block layer will normally generate for file > > system io. > > > > > > > >So in short, just align your read buffer to the > > same as your block size > > > >and you will be fine. Example: > > > > > > > >#define BS (4096) > > > >#define MASK (BS - 1) > > > >#define ALIGN(buf) (((unsigned long) (buf) + > > MASK) & ~(MASK)) > > > > > > > >char *ptr = malloc(BS + MASK); > > > >char *buf = (char *) ALIGN(ptr); > > > > > > > >read(fd, buf, BS); > > > > > > Shouldn't one use posix_memalign(3) for that? > > > > Dunno if one 'should', one 'can' if one wants to. I > > prefer to do it > > manually so I don't have to jump through #define > > hoops to get at it > > (which, btw, still doesn't expose it on this > > machine). > > > > -- > > Jens Axboe > > Thanx a lot Jens :-) > Its working now. > I did not have to make these adjustments on 2.6 > Is looks to be having more relaxation. 2.6 does have the option of checking the hardware dma requirement seperately, but for this path you should run into the same restrictions. Perhaps you just got lucky when testing 2.6? > Can somebody please throw some light on how to find > your system's hard/soft block size ? It's a per-device (or even per-partition, in case of mounted partitions) setting, you can use the BLKBSZGET and BLKSSZGET ioctls to query for soft/hard sector sizes. -- Jens Axboe - 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/