On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:18:28 -0700
Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 7:35 AM Mariusz Tkaczyk
> <mariusz.tkaczyk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:16:37 -0700
> > Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 8:24 AM Mariusz Tkaczyk
> > > <mariusz.tkaczyk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Patch 62f7b1989c0 ("md raid0/linear: Mark array as 'broken' and
> > > > fail BIOs if a member is gone") allowed to finish writes earlier
> > > > (before level dependent actions) for non-redundant arrays.
> > > >
> > > > To achieve that MD_BROKEN is added to mddev->flags if drive
> > > > disappearance is detected. This is done in is_mddev_broken() which
> > > > is confusing and not consistent with other levels where
> > > > error_handler() is used. This patch adds appropriate error_handler
> > > > for raid0 and linear and adopt md_error() to the change.
> > > >
> > > > Usage of error_handler causes that disk failure can be requested
> > > > from userspace. User can fail the array via #mdadm --set-faulty
> > > > command. This is not safe and will be fixed in mdadm. It is
> > > > correctable because failed state is not recorded in the metadata.
> > > > After next assembly array will be read-write again. For safety
> > > > reason is better to keep MD_BROKEN in runtime only.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mariusz Tkaczyk <mariusz.tkaczyk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Sorry for the late response.
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/md/md-linear.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > > > drivers/md/md.c | 6 +++++-
> > > > drivers/md/md.h | 10 ++--------
> > > > drivers/md/raid0.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > > > 4 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/md/md-linear.c b/drivers/md/md-linear.c
> > > > index 1ff51647a682..c33cd28f1dba 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/md/md-linear.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/md/md-linear.c
> > > > @@ -233,7 +233,8 @@ static bool linear_make_request(struct mddev
> > > > *mddev, struct bio *bio) bio_sector < start_sector))
> > > > goto out_of_bounds;
> > > >
> > > > - if (unlikely(is_mddev_broken(tmp_dev->rdev, "linear"))) {
> > > > + if (unlikely(is_rdev_broken(tmp_dev->rdev))) {
> > > > + md_error(mddev, tmp_dev->rdev);
> > >
> > > I apologize if we discussed this before. Shall we just call
> > > linear_error() here?If we go this way, we don't really need ...
> > >
> > > > bio_io_error(bio);
> > > > return true;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -281,6 +282,16 @@ static void linear_status (struct seq_file
> > > > *seq, struct mddev *mddev) seq_printf(seq, " %dk rounding",
> > > > mddev->chunk_sectors / 2); }
> > > >
> > > > +static void linear_error(struct mddev *mddev, struct md_rdev *rdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (!test_and_set_bit(MD_BROKEN, &mddev->flags)) {
> > > > + char *md_name = mdname(mddev);
> > > > +
> > > > + pr_crit("md/linear%s: Disk failure on %pg detected,
> > > > failing array.\n",
> > > > + md_name, rdev->bdev);
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static void linear_quiesce(struct mddev *mddev, int state)
> > > > {
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -297,6 +308,7 @@ static struct md_personality linear_personality
> > > > = .hot_add_disk = linear_add,
> > > > .size = linear_size,
> > > > .quiesce = linear_quiesce,
> > > > + .error_handler = linear_error,
> > >
> > > ... set error_handler here, and ...
> > >
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > static int __init linear_init (void)
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
> > > > index 0a89f072dae0..3354afc9d2a3 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/md/md.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
> > > > @@ -7985,7 +7985,11 @@ void md_error(struct mddev *mddev, struct
> > > > md_rdev *rdev)
> > > >
> > > > if (!mddev->pers || !mddev->pers->error_handler)
> > > > return;
> > > > - mddev->pers->error_handler(mddev,rdev);
> > > > + mddev->pers->error_handler(mddev, rdev);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (mddev->pers->level == 0 || mddev->pers->level ==
> > > > LEVEL_LINEAR)
> > > > + return;
> > >
> > > ... this check here.
> > >
> > > Did I miss something?
> > >
> > Hi Song,
> > That is correct, we can do the same for raid0. I did it this way to
> > make it similar to redundant levels.
> > If you think that it is overhead, I can drop it.
>
> Yeah, it feels like more overhead to me.
>
> I applied 2/3 and 3/3 to md-next. Please take a look and let me know
> if anything needs to be fixed.
>
Now the first patch is just a code refactor with different error message.
I think that we can drop it. Do you agree?
Thanks,
Mariusz
