Re: virtio_blk: fix defaults for max_hw_sectors and max_segment_size

From: Mike Snitzer
Date: Thu Nov 20 2014 - 21:00:20 EST

On Thu, Nov 20 2014 at 2:00pm -0500,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> virtio_blk incorrectly established -1U as the default for these
> queue_limits. Set these limits to sane default values to avoid crashing
> the kernel. But the virtio-blk protocol should probably be extended to
> allow proper stacking of the disk's limits from the host.
> This change fixes a crash that was reported when virtio-blk was used to
> test linux-dm.git commit 604ea90641b4 ("dm thin: adjust max_sectors_kb
> based on thinp blocksize") that will initially set max_sectors to
> max_hw_sectors and then rounddown to the first power-of-2 factor of the
> DM thin-pool's blocksize. Basically that commit assumes drivers don't
> suck when establishing max_hw_sectors so it acted like a canary in the
> coal mine.

I have changed that DM thinp code to not be so fragile with this
follow-on fix:

> In the case of a DM thin-pool built ontop of virtio-blk data device
> these are the insane limits that were established for the DM thin-pool:
> # cat /sys/block/dm-6/queue/max_sectors_kb
> 1073741824
> # cat /sys/block/dm-6/queue/max_hw_sectors_kb
> 2147483647
> by stacking the virtio-blk device's limits:
> # cat /sys/block/vdb/queue/max_sectors_kb
> 512
> # cat /sys/block/vdb/queue/max_hw_sectors_kb
> 2147483647
> Attempting to mkfs.xfs against a thin device from this thin-pool quickly
> resulted in fs/direct-io.c:dio_send_cur_page()'s BUG_ON.

But virtio_blk really must be fixed. I'll post v2 of this patch with a
revised header that skips all the references to DM thinp, etc.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at