From: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 05/11] btrfs: lookup physical address from stripe extent
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 11:34:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y1FqdvFiC2V3FwCa@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <85853887c5f50188e32f879be823c690c33af9d3.1666007330.git.johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 04:55:23AM -0700, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Lookup the physical address from the raid stripe tree when a read on an
> RAID volume formatted with the raid stripe tree was attempted.
>
> If the requested logical address was not found in the stripe tree, it may
> still be in the in-memory ordered stripe tree, so fallback to searching
> the ordered stripe tree in this case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c | 142 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.h | 3 +
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 30 ++++++--
> 3 files changed, 168 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
> index 5750857c2a75..91e67600e01a 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
> @@ -218,3 +218,145 @@ int btrfs_insert_raid_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>
> return ret;
> }
> +
> +static bool btrfs_physical_from_ordered_stripe(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> + u64 logical, u64 *length,
> + int num_stripes,
> + struct btrfs_io_stripe *stripe)
> +{
> + struct btrfs_ordered_stripe *os;
> + u64 offset;
> + u64 found_end;
> + u64 end;
> + int i;
> +
> + os = btrfs_lookup_ordered_stripe(fs_info, logical);
> + if (!os)
> + return false;
> +
> + end = logical + *length;
> + found_end = os->logical + os->num_bytes;
> + if (end > found_end)
> + *length -= end - found_end;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < num_stripes; i++) {
> + if (os->stripes[i].dev != stripe->dev)
> + continue;
> +
> + offset = logical - os->logical;
> + ASSERT(offset >= 0);
> + stripe->physical = os->stripes[i].physical + offset;
> + btrfs_put_ordered_stripe(fs_info, os);
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +int btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> + u64 logical, u64 *length, u64 map_type,
> + struct btrfs_io_stripe *stripe)
> +{
> + struct btrfs_root *stripe_root = fs_info->stripe_root;
> + int num_stripes = btrfs_bg_type_to_factor(map_type);
> + struct btrfs_dp_stripe *raid_stripe;
> + struct btrfs_key stripe_key;
> + struct btrfs_key found_key;
> + struct btrfs_path *path;
> + struct extent_buffer *leaf;
> + u64 offset;
> + u64 found_logical;
> + u64 found_length;
> + u64 end;
> + u64 found_end;
> + int slot;
> + int ret;
> + int i;
> +
> + /*
> + * If we still have the stripe in the ordered stripe tree get it from
> + * there
> + */
> + if (btrfs_physical_from_ordered_stripe(fs_info, logical, length,
> + num_stripes, stripe))
> + return 0;
> +
> + stripe_key.objectid = logical;
> + stripe_key.type = BTRFS_RAID_STRIPE_KEY;
> + stripe_key.offset = 0;
> +
> + path = btrfs_alloc_path();
> + if (!path)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + ret = btrfs_search_slot(NULL, stripe_root, &stripe_key, path, 0, 0);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto out;
> + if (ret) {
> + if (path->slots[0] != 0)
> + path->slots[0]--;
> + }
> +
> + end = logical + *length;
> +
> + while (1) {
> + leaf = path->nodes[0];
> + slot = path->slots[0];
> +
> + btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(leaf, &found_key, slot);
> + found_logical = found_key.objectid;
> + found_length = found_key.offset;
> +
Don't we have fancy new iterators for walking through the btree? Can that be
used here instead of this old style walk through?
> + if (found_logical > end)
> + break;
> +
> + if (!in_range(logical, found_logical, found_length))
> + goto next;
> +
> + offset = logical - found_logical;
> + found_end = found_logical + found_length;
> +
> + /*
> + * If we have a logically contiguous, but physically
> + * noncontinuous range, we need to split the bio. Record the
> + * length after which we must split the bio.
> + */
> + if (end > found_end)
> + *length -= end - found_end;
> +
> + raid_stripe = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, slot, struct btrfs_dp_stripe);
> + for (i = 0; i < num_stripes; i++) {
> + if (btrfs_stripe_extent_devid_nr(leaf, raid_stripe, i) !=
> + stripe->dev->devid)
> + continue;
> + stripe->physical = btrfs_stripe_extent_physical_nr(leaf,
> + raid_stripe, i) + offset;
> + ret = 0;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * If we're here, we haven't found the requested devid in the
> + * stripe.
> + */
> + ret = -ENOENT;
> + goto out;
> +next:
> + ret = btrfs_next_item(stripe_root, path);
> + if (ret)
> + break;
> + }
> +
> +out:
> + if (ret > 0)
> + ret = -ENOENT;
> + if (ret) {
Maybe instead
if (ret && ret != -EIO)
I have a lot of boxes, and a given percentage of them have bad disks, which ends
up with a lot of btrfs_print_tree()'s that I don't need.
> + btrfs_err(fs_info,
> + "cannot find raid-stripe for logical [%llu, %llu]",
> + logical, logical + *length);
> + btrfs_print_tree(leaf, 1);
> + }
> + btrfs_free_path(path);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.h b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.h
> index 3456251d0739..083e754f5239 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.h
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.h
> @@ -16,6 +16,9 @@ struct btrfs_ordered_stripe {
> refcount_t ref;
> };
>
> +int btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> + u64 logical, u64 *length, u64 map_type,
> + struct btrfs_io_stripe *stripe);
> int btrfs_delete_raid_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 start,
> u64 length);
> int btrfs_insert_raid_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index 261bf6dd17bc..c67d76d93982 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -6313,12 +6313,21 @@ static u64 btrfs_max_io_len(struct map_lookup *map, enum btrfs_map_op op,
> return U64_MAX;
> }
>
> -static void set_io_stripe(struct btrfs_io_stripe *dst, const struct map_lookup *map,
> - u32 stripe_index, u64 stripe_offset, u64 stripe_nr)
> +static int set_io_stripe(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, enum btrfs_map_op op,
> + u64 logical, u64 *length, struct btrfs_io_stripe *dst,
> + struct map_lookup *map, u32 stripe_index,
> + u64 stripe_offset, u64 stripe_nr)
> {
> dst->dev = map->stripes[stripe_index].dev;
> +
> + if (fs_info->stripe_root && op == BTRFS_MAP_READ &&
> + btrfs_need_stripe_tree_update(fs_info, map->type))
We already check if (fs_info->stripe_root) in here, so this can be simplified to
if (op == BTRFS_MAP_READ && btrfs_need_stripe_tree_update())
Thanks,
Josef
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-20 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-17 11:55 [RFC v3 00/11] btrfs: raid-stripe-tree draft patches Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-17 11:55 ` [RFC v3 01/11] btrfs: add raid stripe tree definitions Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-20 15:21 ` Josef Bacik
2022-10-20 15:49 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-17 11:55 ` [RFC v3 02/11] btrfs: read raid-stripe-tree from disk Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-17 11:55 ` [RFC v3 03/11] btrfs: add support for inserting raid stripe extents Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-20 15:24 ` Josef Bacik
2022-10-20 15:30 ` Josef Bacik
2022-10-21 8:13 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-17 11:55 ` [RFC v3 04/11] btrfs: delete stripe extent on extent deletion Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-17 11:55 ` [RFC v3 05/11] btrfs: lookup physical address from stripe extent Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-20 15:34 ` Josef Bacik [this message]
2022-10-21 8:16 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-17 11:55 ` [RFC v3 06/11] btrfs: add raid stripe tree pretty printer Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-20 15:34 ` Josef Bacik
2022-10-17 11:55 ` [RFC v3 07/11] btrfs: zoned: allow zoned RAID1 Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-20 15:35 ` Josef Bacik
2022-10-17 11:55 ` [RFC v3 08/11] btrfs: allow zoned RAID0 and 10 Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-20 15:36 ` Josef Bacik
2022-10-17 11:55 ` [RFC v3 09/11] btrfs: fix striping with RST Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-20 15:36 ` Josef Bacik
2022-10-17 11:55 ` [RFC v3 10/11] btrfs: check for leaks of ordered stripes on umount Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-20 15:37 ` Josef Bacik
2022-10-21 8:17 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-17 11:55 ` [RFC v3 11/11] btrfs: add tracepoints for ordered stripes Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-20 15:38 ` Josef Bacik
2022-10-20 15:42 ` [RFC v3 00/11] btrfs: raid-stripe-tree draft patches Josef Bacik
2022-10-21 8:40 ` Johannes Thumshirn
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=Y1FqdvFiC2V3FwCa@localhost.localdomain \
--to=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).