On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:45:17 -0500 Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Neil, > > I have 3 bugs that I've been working on. Two I have fixed and one I > have not, but have a question. > > The first patch (dm-raid-set-recovery-flags-on-resume) addresses the > fact that some recovery flags are altered during suspend, but not > corrected upon resume. I'm wondering if you think these flags would be > better pushed into 'mddev_resume' rather that being altered in > dm-raid.c? I think setting MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED in mddev_resume makes perfect sense. It is quite safe to set it at any time, and the one place where md.c calls mddev_resume() it sets the flag immediately afterwards. So moving that setting into mddev_resume() makes sense. MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN I'm less sure about. If we clear it in mddev_resume(), then as soon as you convert a RAID5 to a RAID6 it would start recovery of the extra device, even if you had set sync_action to 'frozen' first. That would be wrong. I guess we are over-loading 'MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN' it bit. It means both "user-space requested a freeze" and "resync temporarily disabled". I wonder if md_stop_writes() only needs to set it temporarily, and to make sure MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED isn't set when it completes. That might be enough?? However maybe it is easiest to just clear it in raid_resume() like you did. > > The second patch (dm-raid-record-and-handle-missing-devices) adds code > to address the case where the user specifies particular array positions > as missing. I don't have any significant questions about this patch. I do :-) md already does all the proper accounting for ->degraded, dm-raid shouldn't need to. Incrementing md.degraded in dev_parms shouldn't be needed as md_run is subsequently called, and it sets md.degraded correctly. incrementing it in read_disk_sb() and setting the Faulty flag is wrong. I think it should just call md_error(). The other changes in that patch look OK. > > The 3rd issue I am seeing concerns how 'suspend' happens. Suspend > should flush all outstanding I/O and quiesce. When I look at the code, > I feel it should be doing this. ('md_stop_writes' is called and > followed-up by a call to 'mddev_suspend', which quiesces the > personality.) However, if I create a RAID1 device, suspend it, and then > detach one of the legs, it does not show the changes written immediately > before the suspend. If I issue a 'sync', then the changes do show-up. > I confused as to why the suspend process doesn't seem to be pushing out > the writes that have been issued. Any ideas? That sounds like it is behaving exactly as I would expect. You have written to the filesystem (and so to the pagecache) but the filesystem hasn't written to the device yet. That happens after a time, or on a 'sync' or 'fsync'. You might be able to get the block device to ask the filesystem to flush things out using freeze_bdev(), but I'm not sure of the details there. It might not flush things, it might just ensure metadata is consistent - or something. NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel