On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:26:04PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 04:17:19PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:49:50PM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote:
> > > If we had to try more than one mirror to get a successful
> > > read, then write that buffer back to correct the bad mirro
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Allison Henderson <allison.henderson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > > index f102d01..81f6491 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > > @@ -847,6 +847,14 @@ xfs_buf_read_map(
> > >
> > > }
> > > retry_done:
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * if we had to try more than one mirror to sucessfully read
> > > + * the buffer, write the buffer back
> > > + */
> > > + if (!bp->b_error && i > 0)
> > > + xfs_bwrite(bp);
> > > +
> >
> > This can go in the case statement on retry and then you don't need
> > to check for i > 0 or, well, bp->b_error. i.e.
> >
> > swtich (bp->b_error) {
> > case -EBADCRC:
> > case -EIO:
> > case -EFSCORRUPTED:
> > /* try again from different copy */
> > continue;
> > 0:
> > /* good copy, rewrite it to repair bad copy */
> > xfs_bwrite(bp);
>
> Some day we might want to provide some controls for how long we'll retry
> these reads and whether or not we automatically rewrite buffers, since
> some administrators might prefer fast fail to get failover started.
Sure, but if the recovery code is trewn all through the read code,
it becomes a mess to untangle. isolate the recovery code as much as
possible, that way we can factor it out as it becomes more complex.
> (Not now though)
Which is exactly my point about future recovery complexity.... :P
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
