From: Li Nan <linan666@huaweicloud.com>
To: Kenta Akagi <k@mgml.me>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>,
Mariusz Tkaczyk <mtkaczyk@kernel.org>,
Guoqing Jiang <jgq516@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] md/raid1,raid10: don't broken array on failfast metadata write fails
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2025 09:54:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <725043ad-2d50-be78-7cc3-8c565ab364e0@huaweicloud.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250817172710.4892-2-k@mgml.me>
在 2025/8/18 1:27, Kenta Akagi 写道:
> A super_write IO failure with MD_FAILFAST must not cause the array
> to fail.
>
> Because a failfast bio may fail even when the rdev is not broken,
> so IO must be retried rather than failing the array when a metadata
> write with MD_FAILFAST fails on the last rdev.
>
> A metadata write with MD_FAILFAST is retried after failure as
> follows:
>
> 1. In super_written, MD_SB_NEED_REWRITE is set in sb_flags.
>
> 2. In md_super_wait, which is called by the function that
> executed md_super_write and waits for completion,
> -EAGAIN is returned because MD_SB_NEED_REWRITE is set.
>
> 3. The caller of md_super_wait (such as md_update_sb)
> receives a negative return value and then retries md_super_write.
>
> 4. The md_super_write function, which is called to perform
> the same metadata write, issues a write bio without MD_FAILFAST
> this time.
>
> When a write from super_written without MD_FAILFAST fails,
> the array may broken, and MD_BROKEN should be set.
>
> After commit 9631abdbf406 ("md: Set MD_BROKEN for RAID1 and RAID10"),
> calling md_error on the last rdev in RAID1/10 always sets
> the MD_BROKEN flag on the array.
> As a result, when failfast IO fails on the last rdev, the array
> immediately becomes failed.
>
> This commit prevents MD_BROKEN from being set when a super_write with
> MD_FAILFAST fails on the last rdev, ensuring that the array does
> not become failed due to failfast IO failures.
>
> Failfast IO failures on any rdev except the last one are not retried
> and are marked as Faulty immediately. This minimizes array IO latency
> when an rdev fails.
>
> Fixes: 9631abdbf406 ("md: Set MD_BROKEN for RAID1 and RAID10")
> Signed-off-by: Kenta Akagi <k@mgml.me>
[...]
> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> @@ -1746,8 +1746,12 @@ static void raid1_status(struct seq_file *seq, struct mddev *mddev)
> * - recovery is interrupted.
> * - &mddev->degraded is bumped.
> *
> - * @rdev is marked as &Faulty excluding case when array is failed and
> - * &mddev->fail_last_dev is off.
> + * If @rdev is marked with &FailfastIOFailure, it means that super_write
> + * failed in failfast and will be retried, so the @mddev did not fail.
> + *
> + * @rdev is marked as &Faulty excluding any cases:
> + * - when @mddev is failed and &mddev->fail_last_dev is off
> + * - when @rdev is last device and &FailfastIOFailure flag is set
> */
> static void raid1_error(struct mddev *mddev, struct md_rdev *rdev)
> {
> @@ -1758,6 +1762,10 @@ static void raid1_error(struct mddev *mddev, struct md_rdev *rdev)
>
> if (test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) &&
> (conf->raid_disks - mddev->degraded) == 1) {
> + if (test_bit(FailfastIOFailure, &rdev->flags)) {
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&conf->device_lock, flags);
> + return;
> + }
> set_bit(MD_BROKEN, &mddev->flags);
>
> if (!mddev->fail_last_dev) {
At this point, users who try to fail this rdev will get a successful return
without Faulty flag. Should we consider it?
--
Thanks,
Nan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-23 1:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-17 17:27 [PATCH v2 0/3] md/raid1,raid10: don't broken array on failfast metadata write fails Kenta Akagi
2025-08-17 17:27 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] " Kenta Akagi
2025-08-18 2:05 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 2:48 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 12:48 ` Kenta Akagi
2025-08-18 15:45 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-20 17:09 ` Kenta Akagi
2025-08-23 1:54 ` Li Nan [this message]
2025-08-27 17:31 ` Kenta Akagi
2025-08-17 17:27 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] md/raid1,raid10: Add error message when setting MD_BROKEN Kenta Akagi
2025-08-17 17:27 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] md/raid1,raid10: Fix: Operation continuing on 0 devices Kenta Akagi
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=725043ad-2d50-be78-7cc3-8c565ab364e0@huaweicloud.com \
--to=linan666@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=jgq516@gmail.com \
--cc=k@mgml.me \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtkaczyk@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--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).