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
next prev parent 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 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).