From: Guoqing Jiang <jgq516@gmail.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: song@kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, artur.paszkiewicz@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/8] md: add io accounting for raid0 and raid5
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 17:20:35 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1e491df0-4dff-f4b1-9d9d-e3c9c90dac74@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YK+56xtF7VoZexoa@infradead.org>
On 5/27/21 11:25 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> pr_debug("md: data integrity enabled on %s\n", mdname(mddev));
> - if (bioset_integrity_create(&mddev->bio_set, BIO_POOL_SIZE)) {
> + if (bioset_integrity_create(&mddev->bio_set, BIO_POOL_SIZE) ||
> + bioset_integrity_create(&mddev->io_acct_set, BIO_POOL_SIZE)) {
> Don't we need to create this new only for raid0 and raid5?
> Shouldn't they call helpers to create it?
Good catch, will add a check for level.
>> @@ -5864,6 +5866,12 @@ int md_run(struct mddev *mddev)
>> if (err)
>> return err;
>> }
>> + if (!bioset_initialized(&mddev->io_acct_set)) {
>> + err = bioset_init(&mddev->io_acct_set, BIO_POOL_SIZE,
>> + offsetof(struct md_io_acct, bio_clone), 0);
>> + if (err)
>> + return err;
>> + }
> Can someone explain why we are having these bioset_initialized checks
> here (also for the existing one)? This just smells like very sloppy
> life time rules.
My understanding is that md_run is not only called when array is
created/assembled, for example, it can also be called in md_ioctl,
which means you can't call bioset_init unconditionally. Others may
have better explanation.
BTW, besides md, dm is another user of bioset_initialized.
>> +/* used by personalities (raid0 and raid5) to account io stats */
> Instead of mentioning the personalities this migt better explain
> something like ".. by personalities that don't already clone the
> bio and thus can't easily add the timestamp to their extended bio
> structure"
Ok, thanks for rephrasing.
>> +void md_account_bio(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio **bio)
>> +{
>> + struct md_io_acct *md_io_acct;
>> + struct bio *clone;
>> +
>> + if (!blk_queue_io_stat((*bio)->bi_bdev->bd_disk->queue))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + clone = bio_clone_fast(*bio, GFP_NOIO, &mddev->io_acct_set);
>> + md_io_acct = container_of(clone, struct md_io_acct, bio_clone);
>> + md_io_acct->orig_bio = *bio;
>> + md_io_acct->start_time = bio_start_io_acct(*bio);
>> +
>> + clone->bi_end_io = md_end_io_acct;
>> + clone->bi_private = md_io_acct;
>> + *bio = clone;
> I would find a calling conventions that returns the allocated clone
> (or the original bio if there is no accounting) more logical.
Not sure if I follow, do you want the function return "struct bio *"
instead of "void"? I don't think there is fundamental difference
with current behavior.
>> + struct bio_set io_acct_set; /* for raid0 and raid5 io accounting */
> crazy long line.
At lease it aligns with above line and checkpatch doesn't complain
either.
Thanks,
Guoqing
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-28 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-25 9:46 [PATCH V3 0/6] md: io stats accounting Guoqing Jiang
2021-05-25 9:46 ` [PATCH V3 1/8] md: revert " Guoqing Jiang
2021-05-25 9:46 ` [PATCH V3 2/8] md: add io accounting for raid0 and raid5 Guoqing Jiang
2021-05-26 6:32 ` Song Liu
2021-05-26 7:53 ` Guoqing Jiang
2021-05-26 16:00 ` Song Liu
2021-05-27 2:00 ` Guoqing Jiang
2021-05-27 6:14 ` Song Liu
2021-05-27 6:33 ` Guoqing Jiang
2021-05-27 15:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-28 9:20 ` Guoqing Jiang [this message]
2021-05-25 9:46 ` [PATCH V3 3/8] md/raid5: move checking badblock before clone bio in raid5_read_one_chunk Guoqing Jiang
2021-05-25 9:46 ` [PATCH V3 4/8] md/raid5: avoid redundant bio clone " Guoqing Jiang
2021-05-25 9:46 ` [PATCH V3 5/8] md/raid1: rename print_msg with r1bio_existed Guoqing Jiang
2021-05-25 9:46 ` [PATCH V3 6/8] md/raid1: enable io accounting Guoqing Jiang
2021-05-25 9:46 ` [PATCH V3 7/8] md/raid10: " Guoqing Jiang
2021-05-25 9:46 ` [PATCH V3 8/8] md: mark some personalities as deprecated Guoqing Jiang
2021-06-01 1:19 ` [Update PATCH V3 2/8] md: add io accounting for raid0 and raid5 Guoqing Jiang
2021-06-03 1:17 ` Guoqing Jiang
2021-06-03 6:54 ` Song Liu
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=1e491df0-4dff-f4b1-9d9d-e3c9c90dac74@gmail.com \
--to=jgq516@gmail.com \
--cc=artur.paszkiewicz@intel.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=song@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