On 9/18/20 7:38 PM, Heinz Mauelshagen wrote:
>
> On 9/18/20 9:07 AM, heming.zhao wrote:
>> On 9/17/20 6:18 PM, Heinz Mauelshagen wrote:
>>> On 9/10/20 8:34 AM, heming.zhao wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/20 1:17 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>>>>> Dne 09. 09. 20 v 18:47 Zhao Heming napsal(a):
>>>>>> report LV is usable for upper layer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> leave issues
>>>>>> - this patch doesn't contain dm table comparison. So if the disk
>>>>>> � � is removed then re-inserted, but the re-inserted disk
>>>>>> � � major:minor is changed, the code doesn't have ability to detect.
>>>>>> - raid10: removing any 2 disks will think as array broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhao Heming <heming.zhao@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>> - remove dm table parsing code in _lv_is_usable()
>>>>>> - add new status bit NOT_USABLE_LV.
>>>>>> � � note, I chose the first available bit 0x0000000080000000
>>>>>> - _lvusable_disp() uses lv_is_usable() to return usable status
>>>>>>
>>>>> � � � � � dm_list_iterate_items(lvseg, &lv->segments) {
>>>>>> � � � � � � � � � for (s = 0; s < lvseg->area_count; ++s) {
>>>>>> � � � � � � � � � � � � � if (seg_type(lvseg, s) == AREA_PV) {
>>>>>> -� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � if (is_missing_pv(seg_pv(lvseg, s)))
>>>>>> +� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � pv = seg_pv(lvseg, s);
>>>>>> +� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � if (!(pv->dev) && is_missing_pv(pv)) {
>>>>>> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � lv->status |= PARTIAL_LV;
>>>>>> +� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � lv->status |= NOT_USABLE_LV;
>>>>>> +� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � }
>>>>>> � � � � � � � � � � � � � }
>>>>>> � � � � � � � � � }
>>>>>> � � � � � }
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> As it can be seen here - there is big intersection with meaning of
>>>>> PARTIAL_LV.
>>>
>>>
>>> The semantics of a usable LV is fuzzy by definition, because for instance a multi-segment PARTIAL_LV
>>> linear LV with a subset if its segments missing is still accessible relative to the remaining segments
>>> thus doesn't make it unusable.� � As a result, LVs failing t o activate would be the 'unusable ones'.
>>> The later is given for RAID when it's, e.g.� missing more than its maximum number of parity devices
>>> for striped RAID layouts.� So PARTIAL_LV is sufficient to tell that any LV is still partially usable.
>>>
>>>
>> the usable or unusable is up to from which side to see. I prefer to see from top to bottom, upper
>> software (e.g. FS, VM) see the virtual disk (e.g. which is made up of RaidLV) unusable when missing beyond
>> max limit parity devices.
>
> We are on the same plate looking downstack.
>
>> Or linear LV missing any one underlying devices.
>> The reason is that there are only few system/kernel level issue which can make lvm not to work. e.g.
>> device-mapper layer doesn't work, lvm internal bugs. The missing devices won't block lvm issue io, and this
>> time kernel (lower dm layer) will report io error to lvm.
>> So we could make the usable definition:
>> - whether lvm believes the uppser layer can successfully do io to the entire LV
>
>
> ...which is the semantics of PARTIAL_LV state flag when it is set (i.e. parts of the LV are accessible fine
> and other parts will cause I/O errors). So fully usable is the adequate of 'activated && !PARTIAL_LV'.
>
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And the question is - what does it mean in the context of various segment
>>>>> types.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe we need to discuss with Heinz - whether we want to mark
>>>>> Raid LVs partial in case they are actually 'only leg-pertial' and should
>>>>> be actually activatable without partial activation� - which is ATM abused for this purpose.
>>>
>>> Degraded RAID layouts are always usable unless more than its parity devices or all its mirrors failed because of missing PVs.� Hence such activatable RaidLVs are not partial at the LV but at the SubLV Level.
>>>
>> agree.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ATM I'm not sure we want to introduce new flags, which has only slight
>>>>> deviation from current partial flag - which should deserve closer look
>>>>> of its meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll try to find something with Heinz to agree with.
>>>>>
>>>> Ok, wait for feedback from Heinz.
>>>
>>> What are we missing if we define any SubLV partial state with PARTIAL_LV/not activatable and
>>> leave it to the specific segment type handlers of the mappings on top of such SubLVs
>>> to define their respective PARTIAL_LV state or reject activation. E.g. a fully usable RAID6 with a maximimum of 2 missing legs with those missing legs either being partial and RAID6 I/O addressing a missing segment -or- thise leg SubLVs not having been activated _not_ setting PATIAL_LV on the RAID6 LV ('lvs -oname,attr,devices' will show state details on the LV tree nodes).
>>>
>>> Let's discuss this first before adding MISSING_PV to the picture...
>>>
>> not to active PARTIAL_LV means the SubLV doesn't work? by suspend dm-table?
>
> PARTIAL_LV will allow the activation with segments mapped to 'error' targets.
> IOW: the table will be resumed with segment mappings replaced.
>
> E.g. (linear with 4 segements split across 4 PVs with PV#2 missing):
>
> # dmsetup table t-l
> 0 2088960 linear 8:0 2048
> 2088960 2088960 linear 254:2 0
> 4177920 2088960 linear 65:176 2048
> 6266880 24576 linear 65:192 2048
>
> # ll /dev/mapper/|grep dm-2
> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root      7 Sep 18 13:25 t-l-missing_1_0 -> ../dm-2
>
> # dmsetup table t-l-missing_1_0
> 0 2088960 error
>
> FWIW: this works even all segments are gone presuming the VG is still accessible.
>
which level/layer does the error dm-table set? only the bottom linear level?
when missing is happening, within parity number, only set error dm-table on missed dev?
from upper layer software (e.g. fs, vm), this is no different behavior between the error is returned from
dm layer (by error type) and from scsi layer (lower dm layer). the result is upper layer know virtual disk
doesn't work.
when PARTIAL_LV number beyond max limited number, to set error dm-table on all the bottom level's linear devices?
it will totally block upper layer to issue IO on exist devs, and protect exist data.
if your meaning is that this is new behavior of lvm.
(i'm not sure) It looks the kernel raid code also blocking issue io in this condition.
So the setting error type dm-table is very/only useful for linear type.
the purpose of I filed this patch is to give end user more info about raid env. not improve lvm error handling.
>From my view point, this is a little repeated for exist md (raid) layer error handling.
for lvm or dm special virtual devices (like linear, thin?), I support to add new error handling.
>
>> It looks there is no big different between marking PARTIAL_LV flag and suspend dm-table.
>> For me, keep exist logic is more acceptable.
>>
>>> FWIW:
>>> raid0 mappings with a subset of missing segments may not be of much use but will provide data still.
>>>
>> this situation will make upper layer software work abnormally. if a upper layer software can directly manage
>> subset of raid0LV, (in my opinion) there is no reason to set up raid0.
>>
> Right, you're seconding what I stated as '...not be of much use...'
>
>
> So what do you and Zdenek think about the proposal to tag any LV tree nodes with PARTIAL_LV
> on behalf of the involved segment type handler of the respective node (e.g. linear has to set it on any missing segment as oposed to RAID setting it if degradation prevents full access)?
>
>>> Heinz
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you. the PARTIAL_LV is more closer to the new bit NOT_USABLE_LV.
>>>> There is another bit MISSING_PV, which is set when pv is missing or the pv is not workable.
>>>
>>>> From my understanding, we could reuse the PARTIAL_LV to show different meaning according to different context. For example, in raid env, the top layer LV will be set PARTIAL_LV when the raid array not usable (e.g. raid0 missing a disk). Other cases, within raid limit, top layer raid LV won't be set. if following the rule, there will no need to set the new bit NOT_USABLE_LV.
>>>>
>>>> Heming
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> linux-lvm mailing list
>>>> linux-lvm@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
>>>> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
