Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:39:37 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Mark Lord <lkml@rtr.ca>
Cc: Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>, 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 ?
Message-ID: <20071213193937.GG10104@kernel.dk>
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> <476188C4.9030802@rtr.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <476188C4.9030802@rtr.ca>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2470
Lines: 64

On Thu, Dec 13 2007, Mark Lord wrote:
> 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! 

No worries, I didn't pick it up as harsh just as an odd conclusion :-)

If I were you, I'd just start from the first -rc that booted for you. If
THAT has the bug, then we'll think of something else. If you don't get
anywhere, I can run some tests tomorrow and see if I can reproduce it
here.

-- 
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/