From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [md PATCH 17/34] md/raid5: unite handle_stripe_dirtying5 and handle_stripe_dirtying6
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:32:26 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110721023226.6728.28082.stgit@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110721022537.6728.90204.stgit@notabene.brown>
RAID6 is only allowed to choose 'reconstruct-write' while RAID5 is
also allow 'read-modify-write'
Apart from this difference, handle_stripe_dirtying[56] are nearly
identical. So resolve these differences and create just one function.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
---
drivers/md/raid5.c | 77 ++++++++++++++--------------------------------------
1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
index ea796a9..b1eba98 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
@@ -2468,11 +2468,19 @@ static void handle_stripe_clean_event(raid5_conf_t *conf,
md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
}
-static void handle_stripe_dirtying5(raid5_conf_t *conf,
- struct stripe_head *sh, struct stripe_head_state *s, int disks)
+static void handle_stripe_dirtying(raid5_conf_t *conf,
+ struct stripe_head *sh,
+ struct stripe_head_state *s,
+ int disks)
{
int rmw = 0, rcw = 0, i;
- for (i = disks; i--; ) {
+ if (conf->max_degraded == 2) {
+ /* RAID6 requires 'rcw' in current implementation
+ * Calculate the real rcw later - for now fake it
+ * look like rcw is cheaper
+ */
+ rcw = 1; rmw = 2;
+ } else for (i = disks; i--; ) {
/* would I have to read this buffer for read_modify_write */
struct r5dev *dev = &sh->dev[i];
if ((dev->towrite || i == sh->pd_idx) &&
@@ -2519,16 +2527,19 @@ static void handle_stripe_dirtying5(raid5_conf_t *conf,
}
}
}
- if (rcw <= rmw && rcw > 0)
+ if (rcw <= rmw && rcw > 0) {
/* want reconstruct write, but need to get some data */
+ rcw = 0;
for (i = disks; i--; ) {
struct r5dev *dev = &sh->dev[i];
if (!test_bit(R5_OVERWRITE, &dev->flags) &&
- i != sh->pd_idx &&
+ i != sh->pd_idx && i != sh->qd_idx &&
!test_bit(R5_LOCKED, &dev->flags) &&
!(test_bit(R5_UPTODATE, &dev->flags) ||
- test_bit(R5_Wantcompute, &dev->flags)) &&
- test_bit(R5_Insync, &dev->flags)) {
+ test_bit(R5_Wantcompute, &dev->flags))) {
+ rcw++;
+ if (!test_bit(R5_Insync, &dev->flags))
+ continue; /* it's a failed drive */
if (
test_bit(STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE, &sh->state)) {
pr_debug("Read_old block "
@@ -2542,6 +2553,7 @@ static void handle_stripe_dirtying5(raid5_conf_t *conf,
}
}
}
+ }
/* now if nothing is locked, and if we have enough data,
* we can start a write request
*/
@@ -2558,53 +2570,6 @@ static void handle_stripe_dirtying5(raid5_conf_t *conf,
schedule_reconstruction(sh, s, rcw == 0, 0);
}
-static void handle_stripe_dirtying6(raid5_conf_t *conf,
- struct stripe_head *sh, struct stripe_head_state *s,
- int disks)
-{
- int rcw = 0, pd_idx = sh->pd_idx, i;
- int qd_idx = sh->qd_idx;
-
- set_bit(STRIPE_HANDLE, &sh->state);
- for (i = disks; i--; ) {
- struct r5dev *dev = &sh->dev[i];
- /* check if we haven't enough data */
- if (!test_bit(R5_OVERWRITE, &dev->flags) &&
- i != pd_idx && i != qd_idx &&
- !test_bit(R5_LOCKED, &dev->flags) &&
- !(test_bit(R5_UPTODATE, &dev->flags) ||
- test_bit(R5_Wantcompute, &dev->flags))) {
- rcw++;
- if (!test_bit(R5_Insync, &dev->flags))
- continue; /* it's a failed drive */
-
- if (
- test_bit(STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE, &sh->state)) {
- pr_debug("Read_old stripe %llu "
- "block %d for Reconstruct\n",
- (unsigned long long)sh->sector, i);
- set_bit(R5_LOCKED, &dev->flags);
- set_bit(R5_Wantread, &dev->flags);
- s->locked++;
- } else {
- pr_debug("Request delayed stripe %llu "
- "block %d for Reconstruct\n",
- (unsigned long long)sh->sector, i);
- set_bit(STRIPE_DELAYED, &sh->state);
- set_bit(STRIPE_HANDLE, &sh->state);
- }
- }
- }
- /* now if nothing is locked, and if we have enough data, we can start a
- * write request
- */
- if ((s->req_compute || !test_bit(STRIPE_COMPUTE_RUN, &sh->state)) &&
- s->locked == 0 && rcw == 0 &&
- !test_bit(STRIPE_BIT_DELAY, &sh->state)) {
- schedule_reconstruction(sh, s, 1, 0);
- }
-}
-
static void handle_parity_checks5(raid5_conf_t *conf, struct stripe_head *sh,
struct stripe_head_state *s, int disks)
{
@@ -3100,7 +3065,7 @@ static int handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh, struct stripe_head_state *s)
* block.
*/
if (s->to_write && !sh->reconstruct_state && !sh->check_state)
- handle_stripe_dirtying5(conf, sh, s, disks);
+ handle_stripe_dirtying(conf, sh, s, disks);
/* maybe we need to check and possibly fix the parity for this stripe
* Any reads will already have been scheduled, so we just see if enough
@@ -3289,7 +3254,7 @@ static int handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh, struct stripe_head_state *s)
* block.
*/
if (s->to_write && !sh->reconstruct_state && !sh->check_state)
- handle_stripe_dirtying6(conf, sh, s, disks);
+ handle_stripe_dirtying(conf, sh, s, disks);
/* maybe we need to check and possibly fix the parity for this stripe
* Any reads will already have been scheduled, so we just see if enough
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-21 2:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-21 2:32 [md PATCH 00/34] md patches for 3.1 - part 1 NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 03/34] md/raid10: share pages between read and write bio's during recovery NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 02/34] md/raid10: factor out common bio handling code NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 01/34] md/raid10: get rid of duplicated conditional expression NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 09/34] md/raid5: move common code into handle_stripe NeilBrown
2011-07-22 4:30 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 06/34] md/raid5: Remove use of sh->lock in sync_request NeilBrown
2011-07-22 3:39 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 10/34] md/raid5: unify stripe_head_state and r6_state NeilBrown
2011-07-22 4:49 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-22 5:15 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-22 5:37 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-22 5:53 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 6:44 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 04/34] md/raid5: use kmem_cache_zalloc() NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 05/34] md/raid5: get rid of duplicated call to bio_data_dir() NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 07/34] md/raid5: Protect some more code with ->device_lock NeilBrown
2011-07-22 3:54 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 11/34] md/raid5: add some more fields to stripe_head_state NeilBrown
2011-07-22 5:31 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 1:35 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 08/34] md/raid5: replace sh->lock with an 'active' flag NeilBrown
2011-07-22 4:27 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-22 4:49 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-22 5:03 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-08-03 22:47 ` Dan Williams
2011-08-03 23:35 ` NeilBrown
2011-08-03 23:45 ` Williams, Dan J
2011-08-04 0:18 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 18/34] md/raid5: move more common code into handle_stripe NeilBrown
2011-07-22 9:20 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 14/34] md/raid5: move more code into common handle_stripe NeilBrown
2011-07-22 7:32 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 1:48 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 16/34] md/raid5: unite fetch_block5 and fetch_block6 NeilBrown
2011-07-22 8:24 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2011-07-22 9:10 ` [md PATCH 17/34] md/raid5: unite handle_stripe_dirtying5 and handle_stripe_dirtying6 Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 1:52 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-26 2:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-26 9:40 ` David Brown
2011-07-26 13:23 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 15:01 ` David Brown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 19/34] md/raid5: move some more common code into handle_stripe NeilBrown
2011-07-22 9:29 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 1:59 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 15/34] md/raid5: rearrange a test in fetch_block6 NeilBrown
2011-07-22 7:37 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 13/34] md/raid5: Move code for finishing a reconstruction into handle_stripe NeilBrown
2011-07-22 7:09 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 1:44 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 12/34] md/raid5: move stripe_head_state and more code " NeilBrown
2011-07-22 5:41 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 22/34] md/raid: use printk_ratelimited instead of printk_ratelimit NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 24/34] md: remove ro check in md_check_recovery() NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 23/34] md: introduce link/unlink_rdev() helpers NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 26/34] md/raid10: Make use of new recovery_disabled handling NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 27/34] md/raid10: Improve decision on whether to fail a device with a read error NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 25/34] md: change managed of recovery_disabled NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 20/34] md/raid5: finalise new merged handle_stripe NeilBrown
2011-07-22 9:36 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 2:02 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-26 4:50 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 21/34] md: use proper little-endian bitops NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 28/34] md: get rid of unnecessary casts on page_address() NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 34/34] MD bitmap: Revert DM dirty log hooks NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 33/34] MD: raid1 s/sysfs_notify_dirent/sysfs_notify_dirent_safe NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 30/34] md/raid5: move rdev->corrected_errors counting NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 31/34] md/raid10: " NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 29/34] md/raid1: " NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 32/34] md/raid5: Avoid BUG caused by multiple failures NeilBrown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110721023226.6728.28082.stgit@notabene.brown \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.