On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 04:16:58PM +0100, Artur Paszkiewicz wrote:
> On 03/10/2017 12:24 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:59:59AM +0100, Artur Paszkiewicz wrote:
> >> Implement the calculation of partial parity for a stripe and PPL write
> >> logging functionality. The description of PPL is added to the
> >> documentation. More details can be found in the comments in raid5-ppl.c.
> >>
> >> Attach a page for holding the partial parity data to stripe_head.
> >> Allocate it only if mddev has the MD_HAS_PPL flag set.
> >>
> >> Partial parity is the xor of not modified data chunks of a stripe and is
> >> calculated as follows:
> >>
> >> - reconstruct-write case:
> >> xor data from all not updated disks in a stripe
> >>
> >> - read-modify-write case:
> >> xor old data and parity from all updated disks in a stripe
> >>
> >> Implement it using the async_tx API and integrate into raid_run_ops().
> >> It must be called when we still have access to old data, so do it when
> >> STRIPE_OP_BIODRAIN is set, but before ops_run_prexor5(). The result is
> >> stored into sh->ppl_page.
> >>
> >> Partial parity is not meaningful for full stripe write and is not stored
> >> in the log or used for recovery, so don't attempt to calculate it when
> >> stripe has STRIPE_FULL_WRITE.
> >>
> >> Put the PPL metadata structures to md_p.h because userspace tools
> >> (mdadm) will also need to read/write PPL.
> >>
> >> Warn about using PPL with enabled disk volatile write-back cache for
> >> now. It can be removed once disk cache flushing before writing PPL is
> >> implemented.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Artur Paszkiewicz <artur.paszkiewicz@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ... snip ...
> >
> >> +struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *
> >> +ops_run_partial_parity(struct stripe_head *sh, struct raid5_percpu *percpu,
> >> + struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx)
> >> +{
> >> + int disks = sh->disks;
> >> + struct page **xor_srcs = flex_array_get(percpu->scribble, 0);
> >> + int count = 0, pd_idx = sh->pd_idx, i;
> >> + struct async_submit_ctl submit;
> >> +
> >> + pr_debug("%s: stripe %llu\n", __func__, (unsigned long long)sh->sector);
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Partial parity is the XOR of stripe data chunks that are not changed
> >> + * during the write request. Depending on available data
> >> + * (read-modify-write vs. reconstruct-write case) we calculate it
> >> + * differently.
> >> + */
> >> + if (sh->reconstruct_state == reconstruct_state_prexor_drain_run) {
> >> + /* rmw: xor old data and parity from updated disks */
> >> + for (i = disks; i--;) {
> >> + struct r5dev *dev = &sh->dev[i];
> >> + if (test_bit(R5_Wantdrain, &dev->flags) || i == pd_idx)
> >> + xor_srcs[count++] = dev->page;
> >> + }
> >> + } else if (sh->reconstruct_state == reconstruct_state_drain_run) {
> >> + /* rcw: xor data from all not updated disks */
> >> + for (i = disks; i--;) {
> >> + struct r5dev *dev = &sh->dev[i];
> >> + if (test_bit(R5_UPTODATE, &dev->flags))
> >> + xor_srcs[count++] = dev->page;
> >> + }
> >> + } else {
> >> + return tx;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + init_async_submit(&submit, ASYNC_TX_XOR_ZERO_DST, tx, NULL, sh,
> >> + flex_array_get(percpu->scribble, 0)
> >> + + sizeof(struct page *) * (sh->disks + 2));
> >
> > Since this should be done before biodrain, should this add ASYNC_TX_FENCE flag?
>
> The result of this calculation isn't used later by other async_tx
> operations, so it's not needed here, if I understand this correctly. But
> maybe later we could optimize and use partial parity to calculate full
> parity, then it will be necessary.
But the source pages will be overwritten soon, if no fence, I think this is a
problem. Anyway, I'll let Dan to clarify.
Dan,
We are using async API for below operations:
1. xor several source pages to a dest page
2. memcpy other data to the source pages
The two operations will be in an async chain. Should the first operation
include ASYNC_TX_FENCE flag? The API comment declares the flag is required if
the destination page is used by subsequent operations, but I suspect it should
be used too if the subsequent operations could change the source pages.
Thanks,
Shaohua
--
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
