From: Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi <abd.masalkhi@gmail.com>
To: song@kernel.org, yukuai@fygo.io, magiclinan@didiglobal.com,
xiao@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, vverma@digitalocean.com,
john.g.garry@oracle.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
abd.masalkhi@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/7] md/raid10: consistently fail atomic writes that require splitting
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2026 14:24:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260628142420.1051027-4-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260628142420.1051027-1-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com>
RAID10 currently handles one badblock path explicitly by failing atomic
writes with EIO. However, another badblock path can also reduce the
writable range and force the bio through bio_submit_split_bioset(),
which implicitly completes the bio with EINVAL.
Fix this by handling atomic writes in the common split check. If RAID10
determines that an atomic write would require splitting, complete the
bio with EIO.
Fixes: a1d9b4fd42d9 ("md/raid10: Atomic write support")
Signed-off-by: Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi <abd.masalkhi@gmail.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Drop the early atomic write split check from raid10_write_request()
and rely on queue limits instead.
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-raid/20260623072456.333437-4-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com/
---
drivers/md/raid10.c | 14 ++++----------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
index bd322eccdc3f..3480fc7907f0 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
@@ -1356,6 +1356,7 @@ static bool raid10_write_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio,
int i, k;
sector_t sectors;
int max_sectors;
+ bool atomic = bio->bi_opf & REQ_ATOMIC;
if ((mddev_is_clustered(mddev) &&
mddev->cluster_ops->area_resyncing(mddev, WRITE,
@@ -1464,16 +1465,6 @@ static bool raid10_write_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio,
if (is_bad) {
int good_sectors;
- /*
- * We cannot atomically write this, so just
- * error in that case. It could be possible to
- * atomically write other mirrors, but the
- * complexity of supporting that is not worth
- * the benefit.
- */
- if (bio->bi_opf & REQ_ATOMIC)
- goto err_handle;
-
good_sectors = first_bad - dev_sector;
if (good_sectors < max_sectors)
max_sectors = good_sectors;
@@ -1493,6 +1484,9 @@ static bool raid10_write_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio,
r10_bio->sectors = max_sectors;
if (r10_bio->sectors < bio_sectors(bio)) {
+ if (atomic)
+ goto err_handle;
+
allow_barrier(conf);
bio = bio_submit_split_bioset(bio, r10_bio->sectors,
&conf->bio_split);
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-28 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-28 14:24 [PATCH v2 0/7] md/raid10: fixes, atomic write handling, and error-path cleanup Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] md/raid10: fix r10bio leak in raid10_write_request() error paths Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-28 14:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] md/raid1: advertise atomic write limits and handle runtime constraints Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:38 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-28 14:24 ` Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi [this message]
2026-06-28 14:36 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] md/raid10: consistently fail atomic writes that require splitting sashiko-bot
2026-06-28 21:35 ` Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:24 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] md/raid10: remove unnecessary barrier around bio_submit_split_bioset() Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:24 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] md/raid10: replace wait loop with wait_event_idle() Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:24 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] md/raid10: simplify write request error handling Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:24 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] md/raid10: simplify read " Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
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=20260628142420.1051027-4-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com \
--to=abd.masalkhi@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=magiclinan@didiglobal.com \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=vverma@digitalocean.com \
--cc=xiao@kernel.org \
--cc=yukuai@fygo.io \
/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