On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 8:04 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > 在 2023/08/22 10:17, Yu Kuai 写道: > > Hi, > > > > 在 2023/08/22 7:22, Song Liu 写道: > >> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:13 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and > >>> prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync(). > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------ > >>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c > >>> index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c > >>> @@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev) > >>> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags); > >>> } > >>> > >>> +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) > >>> +{ > >>> + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || > >>> + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) > >>> + return false; > >>> + > >>> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && > >>> !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) && > >> > >> Instead of straightforward refactoring, I hope we can make these rdev_* > >> helpers more meaningful, and hopefullly reusable. For example, let's > >> define > >> the meaning of "addable", and write the function to match that > >> meaning. In > >> this case, I think we shouldn't check md_is_rdwr() inside rdev_addable(). > >> > >> Does this make sense? > > > > Yes, this make sense, rdev can be added to read-only array. > > > > There are total three callers of pers->hot_add_sisk, I'll try to find if > > they have common conditions. > > Unfortunately, the conditions is quite different, and It's difficult to > factor out a common helper for them to use. > > In this case, !md_is_rdwr() is one of the four conditions, which means > if the array is read-only, there is a special case that rdev can't be > added to the configuration. Perhaps it's okay to keep this? My main concern is that rdev_addable() is not making the code easier to understand. We have a few different cases at this point: 1. rdev is not suitable for add (Faulty, raid_disk>=0, Candidate); 2. rdev is Journal; 3. Re-add rdev to RO array; 4. Non-re-add rdev to RO array; 5. Other cases. Current rdev_addable() handles more or less all of this, which is confusing. Maybe we can do something along similar to the following (not tested). Does this look more clear? Thanks, Song diff --git i/drivers/md/md.c w/drivers/md/md.c index 78be7811a89f..8cb855d03e0a 100644 --- i/drivers/md/md.c +++ w/drivers/md/md.c @@ -9117,6 +9117,20 @@ void md_do_sync(struct md_thread *thread) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(md_do_sync); +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) +{ + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) + return false; + return true; +} + +static bool rdev_is_readd(struct md_rdev *rdev) +{ + return rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 || + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags); +} + static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, struct md_rdev *this) { @@ -9176,25 +9190,24 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, rdev_for_each(rdev, mddev) { if (this && this != rdev) continue; - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags)) - continue; if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0 && !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) && !test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) spares++; - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0) + + if (!rdev_addable(rdev)) continue; - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) + + if (test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) + goto hot_add_disk; + + if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) && !rdev_is_readd(rdev)) continue; - if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) { - if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) && - !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 && - !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags))) - continue; - rdev->recovery_offset = 0; - } + rdev->recovery_offset = 0; + + hot_add_disk: if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) { /* failure here is OK */ sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev);