On 16/08/2022 16:42, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2022/08/16 3:35, John Garry wrote:
>> On 16/08/2022 07:57, Oliver Sang wrote:
>>>>> For me, a complete kernel log may help.
>>>> and since only 1HDD, the output of the following would be helpful:
>>>>
>>>> /sys/block/sda/queue/max_sectors_kb
>>>> /sys/block/sda/queue/max_hw_sectors_kb
>>>>
>>>> And for 5.19, if possible.
>>> for commit
>>> 0568e61225 ("ata: libata-scsi: cap ata_device->max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors")
>>>
>>> root@lkp-icl-2sp1 ~# cat /sys/block/sda/queue/max_sectors_kb
>>> 512
>>> root@lkp-icl-2sp1 ~# cat /sys/block/sda/queue/max_hw_sectors_kb
>>> 512
>>>
>>> for both commit
>>> 4cbfca5f77 ("scsi: scsi_transport_sas: cap shost opt_sectors according to DMA optimal limit")
>>> and v5.19
>>>
>>> root@lkp-icl-2sp1 ~# cat /sys/block/sda/queue/max_sectors_kb
>>> 1280
>>> root@lkp-icl-2sp1 ~# cat /sys/block/sda/queue/max_hw_sectors_kb
>>> 32767
>>>
>>
>> thanks, I appreciate this.
>>
>>   From the dmesg, I see 2x SATA disks - I was under the impression that
>> the system only has 1x.
>>
>> Anyway, both drives show LBA48, which means the large max hw sectors at
>> 32767KB:
>> [   31.129629][ T1146] ata6.00: 1562824368 sectors, multi 1: LBA48 NCQ
>> (depth 32)
>>
>> So this is what I suspected: we are capped from the default shost max
>> sectors (1024 sectors).
>>
>> This seems like the simplest fix for you:
>>
>> --- a/include/linux/libata.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/libata.h
>> @@ -1382,7 +1382,8 @@ extern const struct attribute_group
>> *ata_common_sdev_groups[];
>>          .proc_name              = drv_name,                     \
>>          .slave_destroy          = ata_scsi_slave_destroy,       \
>>          .bios_param             = ata_std_bios_param,           \
>> -       .unlock_native_capacity = ata_scsi_unlock_native_capacity
>> +       .unlock_native_capacity = ata_scsi_unlock_native_capacity,\
>> +       .max_sectors = ATA_MAX_SECTORS_LBA48
> 
> This is crazy large (65535 x 512 B sectors) and never result in that being
> exposed as the actual max_sectors_kb since other limits will apply first
> (mapping size).

Here is how I read values from above for max_sectors_kb and 
max_hw_sectors_kb:

v5.19 + 0568e61225 : 512/512
v5.19 + 0568e61225 + 4cbfca5f77 : 512/512
v5.19: 1280/32767

They are want makes sense to me, at least.

Oliver, can you confirm this? Thanks!

On this basis, it appears that max_hw_sectors_kb is getting capped from 
scsi default @ 1024 sectors by commit 0568e61225. If it were getting 
capped by swiotlb mapping limit then that would give us 512 sectors - 
this value is fixed.

So for my SHT change proposal I am just trying to revert to previous 
behaviour in 5.19 - make max_hw_sectors_kb crazy big again.

> 
> The regression may come not from commands becoming tiny, but from the fact that
> after the patch, max_sectors_kb is too large, 

I don't think it is, but need confirmation.

>causing a lot of overhead with
> qemu swiotlb mapping and slowing down IO processing.

> 
> Above, it can be seen that we ed up with max_sectors_kb being 1280, which is the
> default for most scsi disks (including ATA drives). That is normal. But before
> that, it was 512, which likely better fits qemu swiotlb and does not generate

Again, I don't think this this is the case. Need confirmation.

> overhead. So the above fix will not change anything I think...


Thanks,
John