On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:38 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 在 2024/02/27 10:23, Xiao Ni 写道:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 4:04 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Commit 12cee5a8a29e ("md/raid1: prevent merging too large request") add
> >> the case choose next idle in read_balance():
> >>
> >> read_balance:
> >> for_each_rdev
> >> if(next_seq_sect == this_sector || disk == 0)
> >> -> sequential reads
> >> best_disk = disk;
> >> if (...)
> >> choose_next_idle = 1
> >> continue;
> >>
> >> for_each_rdev
> >> -> iterate next rdev
> >> if (pending == 0)
> >> best_disk = disk;
> >> -> choose the next idle disk
> >> break;
> >>
> >> if (choose_next_idle)
> >> -> keep using this rdev if there are no other idle disk
> >> contine
> >>
> >> However, commit 2e52d449bcec ("md/raid1: add failfast handling for reads.")
> >> remove the code:
> >>
> >> - /* If device is idle, use it */
> >> - if (pending == 0) {
> >> - best_disk = disk;
> >> - break;
> >> - }
> >>
> >> Hence choose next idle will never work now, fix this problem by
> >> following:
> >>
> >> 1) don't set best_disk in this case, read_balance() will choose the best
> >> disk after iterating all the disks;
> >> 2) add 'pending' so that other idle disk will be chosen;
> >> 3) set 'dist' to 0 so that if there is no other idle disk, and all disks
> >> are rotational, this disk will still be chosen;
> >>
> >> Fixes: 2e52d449bcec ("md/raid1: add failfast handling for reads.")
> >> Co-developed-by: Paul Luse <paul.e.luse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Luse <paul.e.luse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/md/raid1.c | 21 ++++++++++++---------
> >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> >> index c60ea58ae8c5..d0bc67e6d068 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> >> @@ -604,7 +604,6 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect
> >> unsigned int min_pending;
> >> struct md_rdev *rdev;
> >> int choose_first;
> >> - int choose_next_idle;
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * Check if we can balance. We can balance on the whole
> >> @@ -619,7 +618,6 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect
> >> best_pending_disk = -1;
> >> min_pending = UINT_MAX;
> >> best_good_sectors = 0;
> >> - choose_next_idle = 0;
> >> clear_bit(R1BIO_FailFast, &r1_bio->state);
> >>
> >> if ((conf->mddev->recovery_cp < this_sector + sectors) ||
> >> @@ -712,7 +710,6 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect
> >> int opt_iosize = bdev_io_opt(rdev->bdev) >> 9;
> >> struct raid1_info *mirror = &conf->mirrors[disk];
> >>
> >> - best_disk = disk;
> >> /*
> >> * If buffered sequential IO size exceeds optimal
> >> * iosize, check if there is idle disk. If yes, choose
> >> @@ -731,15 +728,21 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect
> >> mirror->next_seq_sect > opt_iosize &&
> >> mirror->next_seq_sect - opt_iosize >=
> >> mirror->seq_start) {
> >> - choose_next_idle = 1;
> >> - continue;
> >> + /*
> >> + * Add 'pending' to avoid choosing this disk if
> >> + * there is other idle disk.
> >> + * Set 'dist' to 0, so that if there is no other
> >> + * idle disk and all disks are rotational, this
> >> + * disk will still be chosen.
> >> + */
> >> + pending++;
> >> + dist = 0;
> >> + } else {
> >> + best_disk = disk;
> >> + break;
> >> }
> >> - break;
> >> }
> >
> > Hi Kuai
> >
> > I noticed something. In patch 12cee5a8a29e, it sets best_disk if it's
> > a sequential read. If there are no other idle disks, it will read from
> > the sequential disk. With this patch, it reads from the
> > best_pending_disk even min_pending is not 0. It looks like a wrong
> > behaviour?
>
> Yes, nice catch, I didn't notice this yet... So there is a hidden
> logical, sequential IO priority is higher than minimal 'pending'
> selection, it's only less than 'choose_next_idle' where idle disk
> exist.
Yes.
>
> Looks like if we want to keep this behaviour, we can add a 'sequential
> disk':
>
> if (is_sequential())
> if (!should_choose_next())
> return disk;
> ctl.sequential_disk = disk;
>
> ...
>
> if (ctl.min_pending != 0 && ctl.sequential_disk != -1)
> return ctl.sequential_disk;
Agree with this, thanks :)
Best Regards
Xiao
>
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Xiao
> >>
> >> - if (choose_next_idle)
> >> - continue;
> >> -
> >> if (min_pending > pending) {
> >> min_pending = pending;
> >> best_pending_disk = disk;
> >> --
> >> 2.39.2
> >>
> >>
> >
> > .
> >
>
