[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <292862ac-f0e0-6068-eb16-511a01f185b2@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 10:28:07 +0800
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To: linan666@...weicloud.com, song@...nel.org
Cc: linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linan122@...wei.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com, houtao1@...wei.com,
yangerkun@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] md/raid10: optimize fix_read_error
Hi,
在 2023/06/24 1:32, linan666@...weicloud.com 写道:
> From: Li Nan <linan122@...wei.com>
>
> We dereference r10_bio->read_slot too many times in fix_read_error().
> Optimize it by using a variable to store read_slot.
>
Other than a nit below, this patch LGTM.
Reviewed-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Li Nan <linan122@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/md/raid10.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> index 381c21f7fb06..94ae294c8a3c 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> @@ -2725,10 +2725,10 @@ static int r10_sync_page_io(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t sector,
> static void fix_read_error(struct r10conf *conf, struct mddev *mddev, struct r10bio *r10_bio)
> {
> int sect = 0; /* Offset from r10_bio->sector */
> - int sectors = r10_bio->sectors;
> + int sectors = r10_bio->sectors, slot = r10_bio->read_slot;
> struct md_rdev *rdev;
> int max_read_errors = atomic_read(&mddev->max_corr_read_errors);
> - int d = r10_bio->devs[r10_bio->read_slot].devnum;
> + int d = r10_bio->devs[slot].devnum;
>
> /* still own a reference to this rdev, so it cannot
> * have been cleared recently.
> @@ -2749,13 +2749,13 @@ static void fix_read_error(struct r10conf *conf, struct mddev *mddev, struct r10
> pr_notice("md/raid10:%s: %pg: Failing raid device\n",
> mdname(mddev), rdev->bdev);
> md_error(mddev, rdev);
> - r10_bio->devs[r10_bio->read_slot].bio = IO_BLOCKED;
> + r10_bio->devs[slot].bio = IO_BLOCKED;
> return;
> }
>
> while(sectors) {
> int s = sectors;
> - int sl = r10_bio->read_slot;
> + int sl = slot;
> int success = 0;
> int start;
>
> @@ -2790,7 +2790,7 @@ static void fix_read_error(struct r10conf *conf, struct mddev *mddev, struct r10
> sl++;
> if (sl == conf->copies)
> sl = 0;
> - } while (!success && sl != r10_bio->read_slot);
> + } while (!success && sl != slot);
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> if (!success) {
> @@ -2798,16 +2798,16 @@ static void fix_read_error(struct r10conf *conf, struct mddev *mddev, struct r10
> * as bad on the first device to discourage future
> * reads.
> */
> - int dn = r10_bio->devs[r10_bio->read_slot].devnum;
> + int dn = r10_bio->devs[slot].devnum;
> rdev = conf->mirrors[dn].rdev;
>
> if (!rdev_set_badblocks(
> rdev,
> - r10_bio->devs[r10_bio->read_slot].addr
> + r10_bio->devs[slot].addr
> + sect,
> s, 0)) {
> md_error(mddev, rdev);
> - r10_bio->devs[r10_bio->read_slot].bio
> + r10_bio->devs[slot].bio
> = IO_BLOCKED;
There is no need to split lines now.
Thanks,
Kuai
> }
> break;
> @@ -2816,7 +2816,7 @@ static void fix_read_error(struct r10conf *conf, struct mddev *mddev, struct r10
> start = sl;
> /* write it back and re-read */
> rcu_read_lock();
> - while (sl != r10_bio->read_slot) {
> + while (sl != slot) {
> if (sl==0)
> sl = conf->copies;
> sl--;
> @@ -2850,7 +2850,7 @@ static void fix_read_error(struct r10conf *conf, struct mddev *mddev, struct r10
> rcu_read_lock();
> }
> sl = start;
> - while (sl != r10_bio->read_slot) {
> + while (sl != slot) {
> if (sl==0)
> sl = conf->copies;
> sl--;
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists