Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1720913 > unrolled thread

Re: Kernels v4.9+ cause short reads of block devices

Started byLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
First post2017-08-27 21:50 +0200
Last post2017-08-29 12:50 +0200
Articles 3 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: Kernels v4.9+ cause short reads of block devices Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-08-27 21:50 +0200
    Re: Kernels v4.9+ cause short reads of block devices Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com> - 2017-08-27 22:00 +0200
    Re: Kernels v4.9+ cause short reads of block devices Doug Nazar <nazard@nazar.ca> - 2017-08-29 12:50 +0200

#1720913 — Re: Kernels v4.9+ cause short reads of block devices

FromLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date2017-08-27 21:50 +0200
SubjectRe: Kernels v4.9+ cause short reads of block devices
Message-ID<ujbJf-3FY-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> wrote:
>
> Doug,
> I noticed while checking for other implications of changing MAX_LFS_FILESIZE
> that fs/jfs/super.c is also working around this limit.

Note to people: I just committed the patch to update MAX_LFS_FILESIZE.

I made it use the simpler (and clearer) calculation of

    ((loff_t)ULONG_MAX << PAGE_SHIFT)

for the 32-bit case, and I did *not* change any other users.

The jfs comment was a bit confusing, and talks about "wraps around" at
8TB, when that actually happens at 16TB. Yes, if you use a signed
number for the index, it does wrap at 8TB, but you really shouldn't
(and the code the jfs comment points to doesn't).

So I didn't touch that.  Nor did I touch:

> it also makes sense to fix jfs_fill_super() to
> use MAX_LFS_FILESIZE instead of JFS rolling its own, something like:
>
>         /* logical blocks are represented by 40 bits in pxd_t, etc.
>          * and page cache is indexed by long. */
>         sb->s_maxbytes = min((u64)sb->s_blocksize) << 40,
>                              MAX_LFS_FILESIZE);

which I agree should be modified. The new MAX_LFS_FILESIZE should be
the right size, but the difference now is only one page less one byte.

                Linus

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1720919

FromDave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com>
Date2017-08-27 22:00 +0200
Message-ID<ujbSV-3Kt-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1720913
On 08/27/2017 02:47 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Doug,
>> I noticed while checking for other implications of changing MAX_LFS_FILESIZE
>> that fs/jfs/super.c is also working around this limit.
> 
> Note to people: I just committed the patch to update MAX_LFS_FILESIZE.
> 
> I made it use the simpler (and clearer) calculation of
> 
>     ((loff_t)ULONG_MAX << PAGE_SHIFT)
> 
> for the 32-bit case, and I did *not* change any other users.
> 
> The jfs comment was a bit confusing, and talks about "wraps around" at
> 8TB, when that actually happens at 16TB. Yes, if you use a signed
> number for the index, it does wrap at 8TB, but you really shouldn't
> (and the code the jfs comment points to doesn't).
> 
> So I didn't touch that.  Nor did I touch:
> 
>> it also makes sense to fix jfs_fill_super() to
>> use MAX_LFS_FILESIZE instead of JFS rolling its own, something like:
>>
>>         /* logical blocks are represented by 40 bits in pxd_t, etc.
>>          * and page cache is indexed by long. */
>>         sb->s_maxbytes = min((u64)sb->s_blocksize) << 40,
>>                              MAX_LFS_FILESIZE);
> 
> which I agree should be modified. The new MAX_LFS_FILESIZE should be
> the right size, but the difference now is only one page less one byte.

I'll submit a patch to clean up jfs.

Thanks,
Shaggy

> 
>                 Linus
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1722318

FromDoug Nazar <nazard@nazar.ca>
Date2017-08-29 12:50 +0200
Message-ID<ujMfL-1wY-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1720913
On 8/27/17 3:47 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Note to people: I just committed the patch to update MAX_LFS_FILESIZE.
> I made it use the simpler (and clearer) calculation of
>
>      ((loff_t)ULONG_MAX << PAGE_SHIFT)
>
> for the 32-bit case, and I did *not* change any other users.

Not a problem... I got caught trying to find out why 4.13 hangs on a
warm reset. It has really slowed down my testing having towalk couple
of floors for every reboot.

Doug

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web