[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8626ee12-e4df-1645-21e9-c6b648ceb1eb@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 11:22:29 +0800
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: xni@...hat.com, song@...nel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
yangerkun@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 3/8] raid5: fix missing io accounting in
raid5_align_endio()
Hi,
在 2023/06/20 17:57, Paul Menzel 写道:
> Dear Yu,
>
>
> Thank you for your patch.
>
> Am 19.06.23 um 22:48 schrieb Yu Kuai:
>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>
>> Io will only be accounted as done from raid5_align_endio() if the io
>> succeed, and io inflight counter will be leaked if such io failed.
>
> succeed*s* or succeed*ed*?
I'll up date this.
>
>> Fix this problem by switching to use md_account_bio() for io accounting.
>
> How can this be tested?
>
>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/md/raid5.c | 29 ++++++++---------------------
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
>> index cef0b400b2ee..4cdb35e54251 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
>> @@ -5468,26 +5468,17 @@ static struct bio
>> *remove_bio_from_retry(struct r5conf *conf,
>> */
>> static void raid5_align_endio(struct bio *bi)
>> {
>> - struct md_io_clone *md_io_clone = bi->bi_private;
>> - struct bio *raid_bi = md_io_clone->orig_bio;
>> - struct mddev *mddev;
>> - struct r5conf *conf;
>> - struct md_rdev *rdev;
>> + struct bio *raid_bi = bi->bi_private;
>> + struct md_rdev *rdev = (void *)raid_bi->bi_next;
>> + struct mddev *mddev = rdev->mddev;
>> + struct r5conf *conf = mddev->private;
>> blk_status_t error = bi->bi_status;
>> - unsigned long start_time = md_io_clone->start_time;
>> bio_put(bi);
>> -
>> - rdev = (void*)raid_bi->bi_next;
>> raid_bi->bi_next = NULL;
>> - mddev = rdev->mddev;
>> - conf = mddev->private;
>> -
>
> This looks like unnecessary refactoring. No idea what the preferred
> style for the subsystem is though. If it is wanted, maybe make it a
> separate commit?
You mean that I initialize 'rdev' and 'mdev' while declaration?
I think code is cleaner this way, and this is too tiny to make a patch
for this... I will keep this for now. 😉
Thanks,
Kuai
>
>> rdev_dec_pending(rdev, conf->mddev);
>> if (!error) {
>> - if (blk_queue_io_stat(raid_bi->bi_bdev->bd_disk->queue))
>> - bio_end_io_acct(raid_bi, start_time);
>> bio_endio(raid_bi);
>> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&conf->active_aligned_reads))
>> wake_up(&conf->wait_for_quiescent);
>> @@ -5506,7 +5497,6 @@ static int raid5_read_one_chunk(struct mddev
>> *mddev, struct bio *raid_bio)
>> struct md_rdev *rdev;
>> sector_t sector, end_sector, first_bad;
>> int bad_sectors, dd_idx;
>> - struct md_io_clone *md_io_clone;
>> bool did_inc;
>> if (!in_chunk_boundary(mddev, raid_bio)) {
>> @@ -5543,16 +5533,13 @@ static int raid5_read_one_chunk(struct mddev
>> *mddev, struct bio *raid_bio)
>> return 0;
>> }
>> - align_bio = bio_alloc_clone(rdev->bdev, raid_bio, GFP_NOIO,
>> - &mddev->io_clone_set);
>> - md_io_clone = container_of(align_bio, struct md_io_clone,
>> bio_clone);
>> + md_account_bio(mddev, &raid_bio);
>> raid_bio->bi_next = (void *)rdev;
>> - if (blk_queue_io_stat(raid_bio->bi_bdev->bd_disk->queue))
>> - md_io_clone->start_time = bio_start_io_acct(raid_bio);
>> - md_io_clone->orig_bio = raid_bio;
>> + align_bio = bio_alloc_clone(rdev->bdev, raid_bio, GFP_NOIO,
>> + &mddev->bio_set);
>> align_bio->bi_end_io = raid5_align_endio;
>> - align_bio->bi_private = md_io_clone;
>> + align_bio->bi_private = raid_bio;
>> align_bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = sector;
>> /* No reshape active, so we can trust rdev->data_offset */
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists