From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A13F194C86; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 11:06:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.19 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725016015; cv=none; b=iebsYmD1XUk75qW6n+K+SCeNkulHDMjaEDN4ZTAHCOc1g5fj7WlQdOaDDZiIu7/zOTpOEoVcPBLtiE9EuRoPf6G5sgT2v4CePwRP8ZpMHo2vbjcOccXJdAiuvrTEwSxwWBVms0MVrLouKATOUi+rXH5RH0rZyXsG0E2sLkvgbTk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725016015; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5Xd1rgTZWcynNOC66b1JQ+rhSyTf83IcClna7ugABgM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=anMa27BojplGyl1hxTBOqk0tnDffu/oX/soWusyH1dga258GRfZzC1mt8CT9vjww4GtopA4wOlDXocsUR/hKzJoUtjjvoWMz1ai1qgxBSN3X16ZKj9TqxbSNpz9hdLf95xmat/95eVXXTsUThWFAkURSpIXOBjSctFAid2SN+KI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=EkyMYcCa; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.19 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="EkyMYcCa" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1725016014; x=1756552014; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5Xd1rgTZWcynNOC66b1JQ+rhSyTf83IcClna7ugABgM=; b=EkyMYcCaHUa1RqoV2JKDQUpFM3iZYxA4g/SqaDSl7fBw0y+8nsl02Agl xP8mp2VV8vTjsy3SqCbI8FT78PpXE58QyhOYq+aHvm3pJVeTBD13/LteR QLkMOfoRkaSKV2xSCYL4Hk/ljyVmpo3Er+3AWNtuj8IxCjF0NoJKZmzWC TcxXyuObKM2Qs2T33gSWCHWPNQueGe0WLyFVDAnaJfC/oa5deP44IrVmc CfMmtoJRBprcK2GehvO9imTA4d4Gq/z0/5fswNTWSoOd0VMvUd9gkn4YN 4cBCk4gLbOyGDwAu7dH/TIUFSm2GbRA+AbIHSi+OhDglDC7oNEgyZ9h5i g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 5QdEEU5bQgylOcJOFnhnKw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 8RhKzgFATX+zEZRI4qfNDg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11179"; a="23517281" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,188,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="23517281" Received: from orviesa010.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.150]) by orvoesa111.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Aug 2024 04:06:53 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: M3EBzl/FQM2Mu6ZTBetULg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: pCaKrAHhR5iToBrWn4JGPg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,188,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="63706619" Received: from mtkaczyk-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.96.27]) by orviesa010-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Aug 2024 04:06:51 -0700 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 13:06:45 +0200 From: Mariusz Tkaczyk To: Yu Kuai Cc: mariusz.tkaczyk@intel.com, song@kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yukuai3@huawei.com, yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH md-6.12 4/7] md/raid1: factor out helper to handle blocked rdev from raid1_write_request() Message-ID: <20240830130645.000076c6@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20240830072721.2112006-5-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> References: <20240830072721.2112006-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> <20240830072721.2112006-5-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 15:27:18 +0800 Yu Kuai wrote: > From: Yu Kuai > > Currently raid1 is preparing IO for underlying disks while checking if > any disk is blocked, if so allocated resources must be released, then > waiting for rdev to be unblocked and try to prepare IO again. > > Make code cleaner by checking blocked rdev first, it doesn't matter if > rdev is blocked while issuing this IO. > > Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai > --- > drivers/md/raid1.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c > index f55c8e67d059..aa30c3240c85 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c > +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c > @@ -1406,6 +1406,49 @@ static void raid1_read_request(struct mddev *mddev, > struct bio *bio, submit_bio_noacct(read_bio); > } > > +static bool wait_blocked_rdev(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio) > +{ > + struct r1conf *conf = mddev->private; > + int disks = conf->raid_disks * 2; > + int i; > + > +retry: > + for (i = 0; i < disks; i++) { > + struct md_rdev *rdev = conf->mirrors[i].rdev; > + > + if (!rdev) > + continue; > + > + if (test_bit(Blocked, &rdev->flags)) { Don't we need unlikely here? > + if (bio->bi_opf & REQ_NOWAIT) > + return false; > + > + mddev_add_trace_msg(rdev->mddev, "raid1 wait rdev %d > blocked", > + rdev->raid_disk); > + atomic_inc(&rdev->nr_pending); retry moves us before for (ugh, ugly) and "theoretically" we can back here with the same disk and increase nr_pending twice or more because rdve can become block again from different thread. This is what I suspect but it could be wrong. Mariusz