From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [md PATCH 11/34] md/raid5: add some more fields to stripe_head_state
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:31:51 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874o2eev94.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110721023225.6728.40465.stgit@notabene.brown> (NeilBrown's message of "Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:32:25 +1000")
NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> writes:
> Adding these three fields will allow more common code to be moved
> to handle_stripe()
>
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
and nitpick below.
> ---
>
> drivers/md/raid5.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
> drivers/md/raid5.h | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> index c32ffb5..3327e82 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> @@ -3003,12 +3003,9 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> {
> raid5_conf_t *conf = sh->raid_conf;
> int disks = sh->disks, i;
> - struct bio *return_bi = NULL;
> struct stripe_head_state s;
> struct r5dev *dev;
> - mdk_rdev_t *blocked_rdev = NULL;
> int prexor;
> - int dec_preread_active = 0;
>
> memset(&s, 0, sizeof(s));
> pr_debug("handling stripe %llu, state=%#lx cnt=%d, pd_idx=%d check:%d "
> @@ -3058,9 +3055,9 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> if (dev->written)
> s.written++;
> rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->disks[i].rdev);
> - if (blocked_rdev == NULL &&
> + if (s.blocked_rdev == NULL &&
> rdev && unlikely(test_bit(Blocked, &rdev->flags))) {
> - blocked_rdev = rdev;
> + s.blocked_rdev = rdev;
> atomic_inc(&rdev->nr_pending);
> }
> clear_bit(R5_Insync, &dev->flags);
> @@ -3088,15 +3085,15 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> - if (unlikely(blocked_rdev)) {
> + if (unlikely(s.blocked_rdev)) {
> if (s.syncing || s.expanding || s.expanded ||
> s.to_write || s.written) {
> set_bit(STRIPE_HANDLE, &sh->state);
> goto unlock;
> }
> /* There is nothing for the blocked_rdev to block */
> - rdev_dec_pending(blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
> - blocked_rdev = NULL;
> + rdev_dec_pending(s.blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
> + s.blocked_rdev = NULL;
> }
>
> if (s.to_fill && !test_bit(STRIPE_BIOFILL_RUN, &sh->state)) {
> @@ -3112,7 +3109,7 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> * need to be failed
> */
> if (s.failed > 1 && s.to_read+s.to_write+s.written)
> - handle_failed_stripe(conf, sh, &s, disks, &return_bi);
> + handle_failed_stripe(conf, sh, &s, disks, &s.return_bi);
> if (s.failed > 1 && s.syncing) {
> md_done_sync(conf->mddev, STRIPE_SECTORS,0);
> clear_bit(STRIPE_SYNCING, &sh->state);
> @@ -3128,7 +3125,7 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> !test_bit(R5_LOCKED, &dev->flags) &&
> test_bit(R5_UPTODATE, &dev->flags)) ||
> (s.failed == 1 && s.failed_num[0] == sh->pd_idx)))
> - handle_stripe_clean_event(conf, sh, disks, &return_bi);
> + handle_stripe_clean_event(conf, sh, disks, &s.return_bi);
>
> /* Now we might consider reading some blocks, either to check/generate
> * parity, or to satisfy requests
> @@ -3166,7 +3163,7 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> }
> }
> if (test_and_clear_bit(STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE, &sh->state))
> - dec_preread_active = 1;
> + s.dec_preread_active = 1;
> }
>
> /* Now to consider new write requests and what else, if anything
> @@ -3264,15 +3261,15 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> unlock:
>
> /* wait for this device to become unblocked */
> - if (unlikely(blocked_rdev))
> - md_wait_for_blocked_rdev(blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
> + if (unlikely(s.blocked_rdev))
> + md_wait_for_blocked_rdev(s.blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
>
> if (s.ops_request)
> raid_run_ops(sh, s.ops_request);
>
> ops_run_io(sh, &s);
>
> - if (dec_preread_active) {
> + if (s.dec_preread_active) {
> /* We delay this until after ops_run_io so that if make_request
> * is waiting on a flush, it won't continue until the writes
> * have actually been submitted.
> @@ -3282,19 +3279,16 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> IO_THRESHOLD)
> md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
> }
> - return_io(return_bi);
> + return_io(s.return_bi);
> }
>
> static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> {
> raid5_conf_t *conf = sh->raid_conf;
> int disks = sh->disks;
> - struct bio *return_bi = NULL;
> int i, pd_idx = sh->pd_idx, qd_idx = sh->qd_idx;
> struct stripe_head_state s;
> struct r5dev *dev, *pdev, *qdev;
> - mdk_rdev_t *blocked_rdev = NULL;
> - int dec_preread_active = 0;
>
> pr_debug("handling stripe %llu, state=%#lx cnt=%d, "
> "pd_idx=%d, qd_idx=%d\n, check:%d, reconstruct:%d\n",
> @@ -3345,9 +3339,9 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> if (dev->written)
> s.written++;
> rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->disks[i].rdev);
> - if (blocked_rdev == NULL &&
> + if (s.blocked_rdev == NULL &&
> rdev && unlikely(test_bit(Blocked, &rdev->flags))) {
> - blocked_rdev = rdev;
> + s.blocked_rdev = rdev;
> atomic_inc(&rdev->nr_pending);
> }
> clear_bit(R5_Insync, &dev->flags);
> @@ -3376,15 +3370,15 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> - if (unlikely(blocked_rdev)) {
> + if (unlikely(s.blocked_rdev)) {
> if (s.syncing || s.expanding || s.expanded ||
> s.to_write || s.written) {
> set_bit(STRIPE_HANDLE, &sh->state);
> goto unlock;
> }
> /* There is nothing for the blocked_rdev to block */
> - rdev_dec_pending(blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
> - blocked_rdev = NULL;
> + rdev_dec_pending(s.blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
> + s.blocked_rdev = NULL;
> }
>
> if (s.to_fill && !test_bit(STRIPE_BIOFILL_RUN, &sh->state)) {
> @@ -3400,7 +3394,7 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> * might need to be failed
> */
> if (s.failed > 2 && s.to_read+s.to_write+s.written)
> - handle_failed_stripe(conf, sh, &s, disks, &return_bi);
> + handle_failed_stripe(conf, sh, &s, disks, &s.return_bi);
> if (s.failed > 2 && s.syncing) {
> md_done_sync(conf->mddev, STRIPE_SECTORS,0);
> clear_bit(STRIPE_SYNCING, &sh->state);
> @@ -3425,7 +3419,7 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> (s.q_failed || ((test_bit(R5_Insync, &qdev->flags)
> && !test_bit(R5_LOCKED, &qdev->flags)
> && test_bit(R5_UPTODATE, &qdev->flags)))))
> - handle_stripe_clean_event(conf, sh, disks, &return_bi);
> + handle_stripe_clean_event(conf, sh, disks, &s.return_bi);
>
> /* Now we might consider reading some blocks, either to check/generate
> * parity, or to satisfy requests
> @@ -3461,7 +3455,7 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> }
> }
> if (test_and_clear_bit(STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE, &sh->state))
> - dec_preread_active = 1;
> + s.dec_preread_active = 1;
> }
>
> /* Now to consider new write requests and what else, if anything
> @@ -3561,8 +3555,8 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> unlock:
>
> /* wait for this device to become unblocked */
> - if (unlikely(blocked_rdev))
> - md_wait_for_blocked_rdev(blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
> + if (unlikely(s.blocked_rdev))
> + md_wait_for_blocked_rdev(s.blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
>
> if (s.ops_request)
> raid_run_ops(sh, s.ops_request);
> @@ -3570,7 +3564,7 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> ops_run_io(sh, &s);
>
>
> - if (dec_preread_active) {
> + if (s.dec_preread_active) {
> /* We delay this until after ops_run_io so that if make_request
> * is waiting on a flush, it won't continue until the writes
> * have actually been submitted.
> @@ -3581,7 +3575,7 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
> }
>
> - return_io(return_bi);
> + return_io(s.return_bi);
> }
>
> static void handle_stripe(struct stripe_head *sh)
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.h b/drivers/md/raid5.h
> index d3c61d3..9ceb574 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.h
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.h
> @@ -248,6 +248,10 @@ struct stripe_head_state {
> int failed_num[2];
> unsigned long ops_request;
> int p_failed, q_failed;
> +
> + struct bio *return_bi;
> + mdk_rdev_t *blocked_rdev;
> + int dec_preread_active;
> };
I'd rather rearrange the struct to reduce paddings on 64-bit:
/* stripe_head_state - collects and tracks the dynamic state of a stripe_head
* for handle_stripe. It is only valid under spin_lock(sh->lock);
*/
struct stripe_head_state {
int syncing, expanding, expanded;
int locked, uptodate, to_read, to_write, failed, written;
int to_fill, compute, req_compute, non_overwrite;
int failed_num[2];
int p_failed, q_failed;
int dec_preread_active;
unsigned long ops_request;
struct bio *return_bi;
mdk_rdev_t *blocked_rdev;
};
BTW, comment above mentions sh->lock which is disappeared in previous
patch. It should be fixed as well (in patch 08/34?).
Thanks.
>
> /* Flags */
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-22 5:31 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 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 03/34] md/raid10: share pages between read and write bio's during recovery 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 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 11/34] md/raid5: add some more fields to stripe_head_state NeilBrown
2011-07-22 5:31 ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2011-07-26 1:35 ` 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 05/34] md/raid5: get rid of duplicated call to bio_data_dir() NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 04/34] md/raid5: use kmem_cache_zalloc() NeilBrown
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 16/34] md/raid5: unite fetch_block5 and fetch_block6 NeilBrown
2011-07-22 8:24 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 17/34] md/raid5: unite handle_stripe_dirtying5 and handle_stripe_dirtying6 NeilBrown
2011-07-22 9:10 ` 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 12/34] md/raid5: move stripe_head_state and more " NeilBrown
2011-07-22 5:41 ` 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 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 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 13/34] md/raid5: Move code for finishing a reconstruction " NeilBrown
2011-07-22 7:09 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 1:44 ` 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 22/34] md/raid: use printk_ratelimited instead of printk_ratelimit NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 23/34] md: introduce link/unlink_rdev() helpers 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 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 21/34] md: use proper little-endian bitops NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 31/34] md/raid10: move rdev->corrected_errors counting 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 29/34] md/raid1: move rdev->corrected_errors counting NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 30/34] md/raid5: " 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 32/34] md/raid5: Avoid BUG caused by multiple failures NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 28/34] md: get rid of unnecessary casts on page_address() 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=874o2eev94.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=namhyung@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
/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.