Linux RAID subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi <abd.masalkhi@gmail.com>
To: yu kuai <yukuai@fygo.io>,
	song@kernel.org, magiclinan@didiglobal.com, xiao@kernel.org,
	vverma@digitalocean.com, axboe@kernel.dk
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yukuai@fygo.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH] md/raid1: honor REQ_NOWAIT when waiting for behind writes
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2026 10:08:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <m2echw1hu8.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <868207d0-d20f-42e8-8257-f57816987bf5@fygo.io>

On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 14:39 +0800, yu kuai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 在 2026/6/22 2:08, Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi 写道:
>> What if on a partial nowait failure we just end the master bio as
>> success, but set NEEDED on that chunk's bitmap counter and start_sync()
>> picks it up for resync? That way we don't have to decide why rdev2
>> failed at all, resync just copies from rdev1 to rdev2 without nowait,
>> so if it's a real bad block, end_sync_write() records it then.
>>
>> We kinda have the idea of ending the bio before the write lands on all
>> mirrors in write-behind already, though it's not quite the same, there
>> the deferred write still lands, here we ACK after it already failed and
>> lean on resync to redo it.
>>
>> My worry is the loaded case: AGAIN under queue pressure isn't that rare,
>> so we might end up triggering resync frequently. Do you think that's
>> acceptable, or is dropping nowait better? Happy to prototype either way.
>
> Yes, AGAIN under queue pressure isn't rare, and I don't think trigger resync
> for a nowait IO failure is acceptable. This can cause lots of offline IO
> pressure which will affect disk service life. Meanwhile, resync will cause
> performance degradation for user.
>
> I still feel dropping nowait is better.
>

That makes sense. I'll drop nowait for md and post a patch.

> -- 
> Thanks,
> Kuai

-- 
Best Regards,
Abd-Alrhman

      reply	other threads:[~2026-06-24  8:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-11  8:35 [PATCH] md/raid1: honor REQ_NOWAIT when waiting for behind writes Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-11  8:49 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-11 10:49   ` Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-20 20:18 ` Yu Kuai
2026-06-21 18:08   ` Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-24  6:39     ` yu kuai
2026-06-24  8:08       ` Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi [this message]

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=m2echw1hu8.fsf@gmail.com \
    --to=abd.masalkhi@gmail.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=magiclinan@didiglobal.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