From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [md PATCH 11/34] md/raid5: add some more fields to stripe_head_state
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:31:51 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874o2eev94.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110721023225.6728.40465.stgit@notabene.brown> (NeilBrown's message of "Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:32:25 +1000")
NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> writes:
> Adding these three fields will allow more common code to be moved
> to handle_stripe()
>
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
and nitpick below.
> ---
>
> drivers/md/raid5.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
> drivers/md/raid5.h | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> index c32ffb5..3327e82 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> @@ -3003,12 +3003,9 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> {
> raid5_conf_t *conf = sh->raid_conf;
> int disks = sh->disks, i;
> - struct bio *return_bi = NULL;
> struct stripe_head_state s;
> struct r5dev *dev;
> - mdk_rdev_t *blocked_rdev = NULL;
> int prexor;
> - int dec_preread_active = 0;
>
> memset(&s, 0, sizeof(s));
> pr_debug("handling stripe %llu, state=%#lx cnt=%d, pd_idx=%d check:%d "
> @@ -3058,9 +3055,9 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> if (dev->written)
> s.written++;
> rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->disks[i].rdev);
> - if (blocked_rdev == NULL &&
> + if (s.blocked_rdev == NULL &&
> rdev && unlikely(test_bit(Blocked, &rdev->flags))) {
> - blocked_rdev = rdev;
> + s.blocked_rdev = rdev;
> atomic_inc(&rdev->nr_pending);
> }
> clear_bit(R5_Insync, &dev->flags);
> @@ -3088,15 +3085,15 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> - if (unlikely(blocked_rdev)) {
> + if (unlikely(s.blocked_rdev)) {
> if (s.syncing || s.expanding || s.expanded ||
> s.to_write || s.written) {
> set_bit(STRIPE_HANDLE, &sh->state);
> goto unlock;
> }
> /* There is nothing for the blocked_rdev to block */
> - rdev_dec_pending(blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
> - blocked_rdev = NULL;
> + rdev_dec_pending(s.blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
> + s.blocked_rdev = NULL;
> }
>
> if (s.to_fill && !test_bit(STRIPE_BIOFILL_RUN, &sh->state)) {
> @@ -3112,7 +3109,7 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> * need to be failed
> */
> if (s.failed > 1 && s.to_read+s.to_write+s.written)
> - handle_failed_stripe(conf, sh, &s, disks, &return_bi);
> + handle_failed_stripe(conf, sh, &s, disks, &s.return_bi);
> if (s.failed > 1 && s.syncing) {
> md_done_sync(conf->mddev, STRIPE_SECTORS,0);
> clear_bit(STRIPE_SYNCING, &sh->state);
> @@ -3128,7 +3125,7 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> !test_bit(R5_LOCKED, &dev->flags) &&
> test_bit(R5_UPTODATE, &dev->flags)) ||
> (s.failed == 1 && s.failed_num[0] == sh->pd_idx)))
> - handle_stripe_clean_event(conf, sh, disks, &return_bi);
> + handle_stripe_clean_event(conf, sh, disks, &s.return_bi);
>
> /* Now we might consider reading some blocks, either to check/generate
> * parity, or to satisfy requests
> @@ -3166,7 +3163,7 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> }
> }
> if (test_and_clear_bit(STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE, &sh->state))
> - dec_preread_active = 1;
> + s.dec_preread_active = 1;
> }
>
> /* Now to consider new write requests and what else, if anything
> @@ -3264,15 +3261,15 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> unlock:
>
> /* wait for this device to become unblocked */
> - if (unlikely(blocked_rdev))
> - md_wait_for_blocked_rdev(blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
> + if (unlikely(s.blocked_rdev))
> + md_wait_for_blocked_rdev(s.blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
>
> if (s.ops_request)
> raid_run_ops(sh, s.ops_request);
>
> ops_run_io(sh, &s);
>
> - if (dec_preread_active) {
> + if (s.dec_preread_active) {
> /* We delay this until after ops_run_io so that if make_request
> * is waiting on a flush, it won't continue until the writes
> * have actually been submitted.
> @@ -3282,19 +3279,16 @@ static void handle_stripe5(struct stripe_head *sh)
> IO_THRESHOLD)
> md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
> }
> - return_io(return_bi);
> + return_io(s.return_bi);
> }
>
> static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> {
> raid5_conf_t *conf = sh->raid_conf;
> int disks = sh->disks;
> - struct bio *return_bi = NULL;
> int i, pd_idx = sh->pd_idx, qd_idx = sh->qd_idx;
> struct stripe_head_state s;
> struct r5dev *dev, *pdev, *qdev;
> - mdk_rdev_t *blocked_rdev = NULL;
> - int dec_preread_active = 0;
>
> pr_debug("handling stripe %llu, state=%#lx cnt=%d, "
> "pd_idx=%d, qd_idx=%d\n, check:%d, reconstruct:%d\n",
> @@ -3345,9 +3339,9 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> if (dev->written)
> s.written++;
> rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->disks[i].rdev);
> - if (blocked_rdev == NULL &&
> + if (s.blocked_rdev == NULL &&
> rdev && unlikely(test_bit(Blocked, &rdev->flags))) {
> - blocked_rdev = rdev;
> + s.blocked_rdev = rdev;
> atomic_inc(&rdev->nr_pending);
> }
> clear_bit(R5_Insync, &dev->flags);
> @@ -3376,15 +3370,15 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> - if (unlikely(blocked_rdev)) {
> + if (unlikely(s.blocked_rdev)) {
> if (s.syncing || s.expanding || s.expanded ||
> s.to_write || s.written) {
> set_bit(STRIPE_HANDLE, &sh->state);
> goto unlock;
> }
> /* There is nothing for the blocked_rdev to block */
> - rdev_dec_pending(blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
> - blocked_rdev = NULL;
> + rdev_dec_pending(s.blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
> + s.blocked_rdev = NULL;
> }
>
> if (s.to_fill && !test_bit(STRIPE_BIOFILL_RUN, &sh->state)) {
> @@ -3400,7 +3394,7 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> * might need to be failed
> */
> if (s.failed > 2 && s.to_read+s.to_write+s.written)
> - handle_failed_stripe(conf, sh, &s, disks, &return_bi);
> + handle_failed_stripe(conf, sh, &s, disks, &s.return_bi);
> if (s.failed > 2 && s.syncing) {
> md_done_sync(conf->mddev, STRIPE_SECTORS,0);
> clear_bit(STRIPE_SYNCING, &sh->state);
> @@ -3425,7 +3419,7 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> (s.q_failed || ((test_bit(R5_Insync, &qdev->flags)
> && !test_bit(R5_LOCKED, &qdev->flags)
> && test_bit(R5_UPTODATE, &qdev->flags)))))
> - handle_stripe_clean_event(conf, sh, disks, &return_bi);
> + handle_stripe_clean_event(conf, sh, disks, &s.return_bi);
>
> /* Now we might consider reading some blocks, either to check/generate
> * parity, or to satisfy requests
> @@ -3461,7 +3455,7 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> }
> }
> if (test_and_clear_bit(STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE, &sh->state))
> - dec_preread_active = 1;
> + s.dec_preread_active = 1;
> }
>
> /* Now to consider new write requests and what else, if anything
> @@ -3561,8 +3555,8 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> unlock:
>
> /* wait for this device to become unblocked */
> - if (unlikely(blocked_rdev))
> - md_wait_for_blocked_rdev(blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
> + if (unlikely(s.blocked_rdev))
> + md_wait_for_blocked_rdev(s.blocked_rdev, conf->mddev);
>
> if (s.ops_request)
> raid_run_ops(sh, s.ops_request);
> @@ -3570,7 +3564,7 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> ops_run_io(sh, &s);
>
>
> - if (dec_preread_active) {
> + if (s.dec_preread_active) {
> /* We delay this until after ops_run_io so that if make_request
> * is waiting on a flush, it won't continue until the writes
> * have actually been submitted.
> @@ -3581,7 +3575,7 @@ static void handle_stripe6(struct stripe_head *sh)
> md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
> }
>
> - return_io(return_bi);
> + return_io(s.return_bi);
> }
>
> static void handle_stripe(struct stripe_head *sh)
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.h b/drivers/md/raid5.h
> index d3c61d3..9ceb574 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.h
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.h
> @@ -248,6 +248,10 @@ struct stripe_head_state {
> int failed_num[2];
> unsigned long ops_request;
> int p_failed, q_failed;
> +
> + struct bio *return_bi;
> + mdk_rdev_t *blocked_rdev;
> + int dec_preread_active;
> };
I'd rather rearrange the struct to reduce paddings on 64-bit:
/* stripe_head_state - collects and tracks the dynamic state of a stripe_head
* for handle_stripe. It is only valid under spin_lock(sh->lock);
*/
struct stripe_head_state {
int syncing, expanding, expanded;
int locked, uptodate, to_read, to_write, failed, written;
int to_fill, compute, req_compute, non_overwrite;
int failed_num[2];
int p_failed, q_failed;
int dec_preread_active;
unsigned long ops_request;
struct bio *return_bi;
mdk_rdev_t *blocked_rdev;
};
BTW, comment above mentions sh->lock which is disappeared in previous
patch. It should be fixed as well (in patch 08/34?).
Thanks.
>
> /* Flags */
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-22 5:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-21 2:32 [md PATCH 00/34] md patches for 3.1 - part 1 NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 03/34] md/raid10: share pages between read and write bio's during recovery NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 02/34] md/raid10: factor out common bio handling code NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 01/34] md/raid10: get rid of duplicated conditional expression NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 05/34] md/raid5: get rid of duplicated call to bio_data_dir() NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 09/34] md/raid5: move common code into handle_stripe NeilBrown
2011-07-22 4:30 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 10/34] md/raid5: unify stripe_head_state and r6_state NeilBrown
2011-07-22 4:49 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-22 5:15 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-22 5:37 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-22 5:53 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 6:44 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 07/34] md/raid5: Protect some more code with ->device_lock NeilBrown
2011-07-22 3:54 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 08/34] md/raid5: replace sh->lock with an 'active' flag NeilBrown
2011-07-22 4:27 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-22 4:49 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-22 5:03 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-08-03 22:47 ` Dan Williams
2011-08-03 23:35 ` NeilBrown
2011-08-03 23:45 ` Williams, Dan J
2011-08-04 0:18 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 04/34] md/raid5: use kmem_cache_zalloc() NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 06/34] md/raid5: Remove use of sh->lock in sync_request NeilBrown
2011-07-22 3:39 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 11/34] md/raid5: add some more fields to stripe_head_state NeilBrown
2011-07-22 5:31 ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2011-07-26 1:35 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 17/34] md/raid5: unite handle_stripe_dirtying5 and handle_stripe_dirtying6 NeilBrown
2011-07-22 9:10 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 1:52 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-26 2:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-26 9:40 ` David Brown
2011-07-26 13:23 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 15:01 ` David Brown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 18/34] md/raid5: move more common code into handle_stripe NeilBrown
2011-07-22 9:20 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 12/34] md/raid5: move stripe_head_state and more " NeilBrown
2011-07-22 5:41 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 19/34] md/raid5: move some more common " NeilBrown
2011-07-22 9:29 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 1:59 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 13/34] md/raid5: Move code for finishing a reconstruction " NeilBrown
2011-07-22 7:09 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 1:44 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 16/34] md/raid5: unite fetch_block5 and fetch_block6 NeilBrown
2011-07-22 8:24 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 15/34] md/raid5: rearrange a test in fetch_block6 NeilBrown
2011-07-22 7:37 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 14/34] md/raid5: move more code into common handle_stripe NeilBrown
2011-07-22 7:32 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 1:48 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 22/34] md/raid: use printk_ratelimited instead of printk_ratelimit NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 25/34] md: change managed of recovery_disabled NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 20/34] md/raid5: finalise new merged handle_stripe NeilBrown
2011-07-22 9:36 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-26 2:02 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-26 4:50 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 24/34] md: remove ro check in md_check_recovery() NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 26/34] md/raid10: Make use of new recovery_disabled handling NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 23/34] md: introduce link/unlink_rdev() helpers NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 21/34] md: use proper little-endian bitops NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 27/34] md/raid10: Improve decision on whether to fail a device with a read error NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 33/34] MD: raid1 s/sysfs_notify_dirent/sysfs_notify_dirent_safe NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 32/34] md/raid5: Avoid BUG caused by multiple failures NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 31/34] md/raid10: move rdev->corrected_errors counting NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 34/34] MD bitmap: Revert DM dirty log hooks NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 30/34] md/raid5: move rdev->corrected_errors counting NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 29/34] md/raid1: " NeilBrown
2011-07-21 2:32 ` [md PATCH 28/34] md: get rid of unnecessary casts on page_address() NeilBrown
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=874o2eev94.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=namhyung@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
/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).