All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mariusz Tkaczyk <mariusz.tkaczyk@linux.intel.com>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Cc: mariusz.tkaczyk@intel.com, song@kernel.org,
	linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com,
	"yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH md-6.12 3/7] md: don't record new badblocks for faulty rdev
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 10:55:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240902105539.00007655@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c9af88ac-111e-19a2-b135-d2a379ed23fc@huaweicloud.com>

On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 09:14:39 +0800
Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 在 2024/08/30 18:28, Mariusz Tkaczyk 写道:
> > On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 15:27:17 +0800
> > Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
> >>
> >> Faulty will be checked before issuing IO to the rdev, however, rdev can
> >> be faulty at any time, hence it's possible that rdev_set_badblocks()
> >> will be called for faulty rdev. In this case, mddev->sb_flags will be
> >> set and some other path can be blocked by updating super block.
> >>
> >> Since faulty rdev will not be accesed anymore, there is no need to
> >> record new babblocks for faulty rdev and forcing updating super block.
> >>
> >> Noted this is not a bugfix, just prevent updating superblock in some
> >> corner cases, and will help to slice a bug related to external
> >> metadata[1].
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f34452df-810b-48b2-a9b4-7f925699a9e7@linux.intel.com/
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/md/md.c | 4 ++++
> >>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
> >> index 675d89597c7b..a3f7f407fe42 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
> >> @@ -9757,6 +9757,10 @@ int rdev_set_badblocks(struct md_rdev *rdev,
> >> sector_t s, int sectors, {
> >>   	struct mddev *mddev = rdev->mddev;
> >>   	int rv;
> >> +
> >> +	if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
> >> +		return 1;
> >> +  
> > 
> > Blame is volatile, this is why we need a comment here :)
> > Otherwise, someone may remove that.  
> 
> Perhaps something like following?
> 
> /*
>   * record new babblocks for faulty rdev will force unnecessary
>   * super block updating.
>   */
> 

Almost, we need to refer to external context because this is important to
mention where to expect issues:

/*
 * Recording new badblocks for faulty rdev will force unnecessary
 * super block updating. This is fragile for external management because
 * userspace daemon may trying to remove this device and deadlock may
 * occur. This will be probably solved in the mdadm, but it is safer to avoid
 * it.
 */

In my testing, I observed that it improves failing bios and device removal
path (recording badblock is simply expensive if there are many badblocks) so
the devices are removed faster but I don't have data here, this is what I saw.

Obviously, it is optimization.

Mariusz

  reply	other threads:[~2024-09-02  8:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-30  7:27 [PATCH md-6.12 0/7] md: enhance faulty chekcing for blocked handling Yu Kuai
2024-08-30  7:27 ` [PATCH md-6.12 1/7] md: add a new helper rdev_blocked() Yu Kuai
2024-08-30  7:27 ` [PATCH md-6.12 2/7] md: don't wait faulty rdev in md_wait_for_blocked_rdev() Yu Kuai
2024-08-30  7:27 ` [PATCH md-6.12 3/7] md: don't record new badblocks for faulty rdev Yu Kuai
2024-08-30 10:28   ` Mariusz Tkaczyk
2024-08-31  1:14     ` Yu Kuai
2024-09-02  8:55       ` Mariusz Tkaczyk [this message]
2024-09-02 12:37         ` Yu Kuai
2024-08-30  7:27 ` [PATCH md-6.12 4/7] md/raid1: factor out helper to handle blocked rdev from raid1_write_request() Yu Kuai
2024-08-30 11:06   ` Mariusz Tkaczyk
2024-08-31  1:13     ` Yu Kuai
2024-08-30  7:27 ` [PATCH md-6.12 5/7] md/raid1: don't wait for Faulty rdev in wait_blocked_rdev() Yu Kuai
2024-08-30  7:27 ` [PATCH md-6.12 6/7] md/raid10: " Yu Kuai
2024-08-30  7:27 ` [PATCH md-6.12 7/7] md/raid5: don't set Faulty rdev for blocked_rdev Yu Kuai
2024-08-30 11:12 ` [PATCH md-6.12 0/7] md: enhance faulty chekcing for blocked handling Mariusz Tkaczyk
2024-10-09  7:14 ` Mariusz Tkaczyk
2024-10-10 12:38   ` Yu Kuai
2024-10-09  8:52 ` Paul Menzel
2024-10-10 12:40   ` Yu Kuai

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=20240902105539.00007655@linux.intel.com \
    --to=mariusz.tkaczyk@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mariusz.tkaczyk@intel.com \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=yangerkun@huawei.com \
    --cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
    --cc=yukuai1@huaweicloud.com \
    --cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
    /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.