On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:29:21 +0200 Adam Kwolek <adam.kwolek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> When 2 arrays are configured in container and arrays are reassembled during
> rebuild or initialization, checkpoint for one array can be reset. It depends
> on arrays assembly order.
>
> Scenario:
> 1. Create 2 arrays (e.g. raid5)
> 2. Add spare to container
> 3. Degrade arrays /rebuild starts on array #1 and continues to n%/
> 4. Reassembly arrays
> 5. Rebuild starts on array #2 /because of assembly order/ from 0%
> 6. On first checkpoint stored for array #2 (non 0 value), checkpoint
> for array #1 is cleared /it is delayed rebuild in md, so progress is 0/
> 7. Rebuild on #1 starts from n% /it was configured before checkpoint
> was cleared/.
>
> Any next reassembly during rebuild of #2 array (after p.6) causes
> checkpoint information lost for array #1.
>
> Solution is not store checkpoint for progress == 0.
> Checkpoint is set to 0 when rebuild/initialization starts.
>
> Note: Please apply this patch on master branch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adam Kwolek <adam.kwolek@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
Applied, thanks.
NeilBrown
>
> super-intel.c | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/super-intel.c b/super-intel.c
> index 83135a6..0956c92 100644
> --- a/super-intel.c
> +++ b/super-intel.c
> @@ -5479,6 +5479,7 @@ mark_checkpoint:
> * curr_migr_unit needs updating
> */
> if (units32 == units &&
> + units32 != 0 &&
> __le32_to_cpu(dev->vol.curr_migr_unit) != units32) {
> dprintf("imsm: mark checkpoint (%u)\n", units32);
> dev->vol.curr_migr_unit = __cpu_to_le32(units32);
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
