On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:26:50 +0300 Alexander Lyakas <alex.bolshoy@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Hi Neil,
> you are completely right. I got confused between mddev->recovery_cp
> and sb->resync_offset; the latter may become 0 due to in-flight WRITEs
> and not due to resync. Looking at the code again, I see that
> recovery_cp is totally one-way from sb->resync_offset to MaxSector
> (except for explicit loading via sysfs). Also recovery_cp is not
> relevant to "check" and "repair". So recovery_cp is pretty simple
> after all.
>
> Below is V2 patch. (I have also to credit it to somebody else, because
> he was the one that said - just do rcw while you are resyncing).
>
> Thanks,
> Alex.
>
>
> -----------------
> >From cc3e2bfcf2fd2c69180577949425d69de88706bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alex Lyakas <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:55:00 +0300
> Subject: [PATCH] When RAID5 is dirty, force reconstruct-write instead of
> read-modify-write.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Lyakas <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Yair Hershko <yair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by has a very specific meaning - it isn't just a way of giving
recredit.
If Yair wrote some of the code, this is fine.
If not, then something like "Suggest-by:" might be more appropriate.
Should I change it to that.
applied, thanks.
NeilBrown
>
> diff --git a/ubuntu_kmodules/Ubuntu-3.2.0-25.40/drivers/md/raid5.c
> b/ubuntu_kmodules/Ubuntu-3.2.0-25.40/drivers/md/raid5.c
> index 5332202..9fdd5e3 100644
> --- a/ubuntu_kmodules/Ubuntu-3.2.0-25.40/drivers/md/raid5.c
> +++ b/ubuntu_kmodules/Ubuntu-3.2.0-25.40/drivers/md/raid5.c
> @@ -2555,12 +2555,24 @@ static void handle_stripe_dirtying(struct r5conf *conf,
> int disks)
> {
> int rmw = 0, rcw = 0, i;
> - if (conf->max_degraded == 2) {
> - /* RAID6 requires 'rcw' in current implementation
> - * Calculate the real rcw later - for now fake it
> + sector_t recovery_cp = conf->mddev->recovery_cp;
> +
> + /* RAID6 requires 'rcw' in current implementation.
> + * Otherwise, check whether resync is now happening or should start.
> + * If yes, then the array is dirty (after unclean shutdown or
> + * initial creation), so parity in some stripes might be inconsistent.
> + * In this case, we need to always do reconstruct-write, to ensure
> + * that in case of drive failure or read-error correction, we
> + * generate correct data from the parity.
> + */
> + if (conf->max_degraded == 2 ||
> + (recovery_cp < MaxSector && sh->sector >= recovery_cp)) {
> + /* Calculate the real rcw later - for now make it
> * look like rcw is cheaper
> */
> rcw = 1; rmw = 2;
> + pr_debug("force RCW max_degraded=%u, recovery_cp=%lu
> sh->sector=%lu\n",
> + conf->max_degraded, recovery_cp, sh->sector);
> } else for (i = disks; i--; ) {
> /* would I have to read this buffer for read_modify_write */
> struct r5dev *dev = &sh->dev[i];
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:59 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:15:16 +0300 Alexander Lyakas <alex.bolshoy@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Neil,
> >> below is a bit less-ugly version of the patch.
> >> Thanks,
> >> Alex.
> >>
> >> >From 05cf800d623bf558c99d542cf8bf083c85b7e5d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Alex Lyakas <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:55:00 +0300
> >> Subject: [PATCH] When RAID5 is dirty, force reconstruct-write instead of
> >> read-modify-write.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Lyakas <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yair Hershko <yair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/ubuntu_kmodules/Ubuntu-3.2.0-25.40/drivers/md/raid5.c
> >> b/ubuntu_kmodules/Ubuntu-3.2.0-25.40/drivers/md/raid5.c
> >> index 5332202..0702785 100644
> >> --- a/ubuntu_kmodules/Ubuntu-3.2.0-25.40/drivers/md/raid5.c
> >> +++ b/ubuntu_kmodules/Ubuntu-3.2.0-25.40/drivers/md/raid5.c
> >> @@ -2555,12 +2555,36 @@ static void handle_stripe_dirtying(struct r5conf *conf,
> >> int disks)
> >> {
> >> int rmw = 0, rcw = 0, i;
> >> - if (conf->max_degraded == 2) {
> >> - /* RAID6 requires 'rcw' in current implementation
> >> - * Calculate the real rcw later - for now fake it
> >> + sector_t recovery_cp = conf->mddev->recovery_cp;
> >> + unsigned long recovery = conf->mddev->recovery;
> >> + int needed = test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED, &recovery);
> >> + int resyncing = test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_SYNC, &recovery) &&
> >> + !test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_REQUESTED, &recovery) &&
> >> + !test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_CHECK, &recovery);
> >> + int transitional = test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING, &recovery) &&
> >> + !test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_SYNC, &recovery) &&
> >> + !test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RECOVER, &recovery) &&
> >> + !test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_DONE, &recovery) &&
> >> + !test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RESHAPE, &recovery);
> >
> > Thanks Alex,
> > however I don't understand why you want to test all of these bits.
> > Isn't it enough just to check ->recovery_cp ??
> >
> >> +
> >> + /* RAID6 requires 'rcw' in current implementation.
> >> + * Otherwise, attempt to check whether resync is now happening
> >> + * or should start.
> >> + * If yes, then the array is dirty (after unclean shutdown or
> >> + * initial creation), so parity in some stripes might be inconsistent.
> >> + * In this case, we need to always do reconstruct-write, to ensure
> >> + * that in case of drive failure or read-error correction, we
> >> + * generate correct data from the parity.
> >> + */
> >> + if (conf->max_degraded == 2 ||
> >> + (recovery_cp < MaxSector && sh->sector >= recovery_cp &&
> >> + (needed || resyncing || transitional))) {
> >> + /* Calculate the real rcw later - for now fake it
> >> * look like rcw is cheaper
> >
> > Also, we should probably fix this comment. s/fake/make/
> >
> > Thanks,
> > NeilBrown
> >
> >
> >
> >> */
> >> rcw = 1; rmw = 2;
> >> + pr_debug("force RCW max_degraded=%u, recovery_cp=%lu
> >> sh->sector=%lu recovery=0x%lx\n",
> >> + conf->max_degraded, recovery_cp, sh->sector, recovery);
> >> } else for (i = disks; i--; ) {
> >> /* would I have to read this buffer for read_modify_write */
> >> struct r5dev *dev = &sh->dev[i];
> >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
