linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH md-6.9 v2 00/10] md/raid1: refactor read

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:11:26 -0800
From: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: xni@...hat.com, paul.e.luse@...ux.intel.com, shli@...com, neilb@...e.com, 
	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yukuai3@...wei.com, 
	yi.zhang@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH md-6.9 v2 00/10] md/raid1: refactor read_balance() and
 some minor fix

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 4:09 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>
> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>
> Changes in v2:
>  - add new conter in conf for patch 2;
>  - fix the case choose next idle while there is no other idle disk in
>  patch 3;
>  - add some review tag from Xiao Ni for patch 1, 4-8
>
> The original idea is that Paul want to optimize raid1 read
> performance([1]), however, we think that the original code for
> read_balance() is quite complex, and we don't want to add more
> complexity. Hence we decide to refactor read_balance() first, to make
> code cleaner and easier for follow up.
>
> Before this patchset, read_balance() has many local variables and many
> branches, it want to consider all the scenarios in one iteration. The
> idea of this patch is to divide them into 4 different steps:
>
> 1) If resync is in progress, find the first usable disk, patch 5;
> Otherwise:
> 2) Loop through all disks and skipping slow disks and disks with bad
> blocks, choose the best disk, patch 10. If no disk is found:
> 3) Look for disks with bad blocks and choose the one with most number of
> sectors, patch 8. If no disk is found:
> 4) Choose first found slow disk with no bad blocks, or slow disk with
> most number of sectors, patch 7.
>
> Note that step 3) and step 4) are super code path, and performance
> should not be considered.
>
> And after this patchset, we'll continue to optimize read_balance for
> step 2), specifically how to choose the best rdev to read.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240102125115.129261-1-paul.e.luse@linuxintel.com/

v2 looks good to me. Thanks! I will give Xiao some more time to review
it one more time before pushing it to md-6.9.

Song