Message-ID: <476188C4.9030802@rtr.ca>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:32:20 -0500
From: Mark Lord <lkml@rtr.ca>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
       IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>,
       Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: QUEUE_FLAG_CLUSTER: not working in 2.6.24 ?
References: <47617B92.6020908@rtr.ca> <47617C07.3020501@rtr.ca> <47617E72.6080504@rtr.ca> <20071213185326.GQ26334@parisc-linux.org> <4761821F.3050602@rtr.ca> <20071213192633.GD10104@kernel.dk> <4761883A.7050908@rtr.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4761883A.7050908@rtr.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2069
Lines: 54

Mark Lord wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 13 2007, Mark Lord wrote:
>>> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:48:18PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
>>>>> Problem confirmed.  2.6.23.8 regularly generates segments up to 
>>>>> 64KB for libata,
>>>>> but 2.6.24 uses only 4KB segments and a *few* 8KB segments.
>>>> Just a suspicion ... could this be slab vs slub?  ie check your configs
>>>> are the same / similar between the two kernels.
>>> ..
>>>
>>> Mmmm.. a good thought, that one.
>>> But I just rechecked, and both have CONFIG_SLAB=y
>>>
>>> My guess is that something got changed around when Jens
>>> reworked the block layer for 2.6.24.
>>> I'm going to dig around in there now.
>>
>> I didn't rework the block layer for 2.6.24 :-). The core block layer
>> changes since 2.6.23 are:
>>
>> - Support for empty barriers. Not a likely candidate.
>> - Shared tag queue fixes. Totally unlikely.
>> - sg chaining support. Not likely.
>> - The bio changes from Neil. Of the bunch, the most likely suspects in
>>   this area, since it changes some of the code involved with merges and
>>   blk_rq_map_sg().
>> - Lots of simple stuff, again very unlikely.
>>
>> Anyway, it sounds odd for this to be a block layer problem if you do see
>> occasional segments being merged. So it sounds more like the input data
>> having changed.
>>
>> Why not just bisect it?
> ..
> 
> Because the early 2.6.24 series failed to boot on this machine
> due to bugs in the block layer -- so the code that caused this regression
> is probably in the stuff from before the kernels became usable here.
..

That sounds more harsh than intended --> the earlier 2.6.24 kernels (up to
the first couple of -rc* ones failed here because of incompatibilities
between the block/bio changes and libata.

That's better, I think! 

Cheers
--
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/