| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALTww2-6s-yvQfSmSLSQ78CgfDdOW-aNHJVqyofBoCqvS25hzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:50:46 +0800
From: Xiao Ni <xni@...hat.com>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: paul.e.luse@...ux.intel.com, song@...nel.org, neilb@...e.com, shli@...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 06/10] md/raid1: factor out read_first_rdev() from read_balance()
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 4:04 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>
> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>
> read_balance() is hard to understand because there are too many status
> and branches, and it's overlong.
>
> This patch factor out the case to read the first rdev from
> read_balance(), there are no functional changes.
>
> Co-developed-by: Paul Luse <paul.e.luse@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Luse <paul.e.luse@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/md/raid1.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> index 8089c569e84f..08c45ca55a7e 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> @@ -579,6 +579,47 @@ static sector_t align_to_barrier_unit_end(sector_t start_sector,
> return len;
> }
>
> +static void update_read_sectors(struct r1conf *conf, int disk,
> + sector_t this_sector, int len)
> +{
> + struct raid1_info *info = &conf->mirrors[disk];
> +
> + atomic_inc(&info->rdev->nr_pending);
> + if (info->next_seq_sect != this_sector)
> + info->seq_start = this_sector;
> + info->next_seq_sect = this_sector + len;
> +}
> +
> +static int choose_first_rdev(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio,
> + int *max_sectors)
> +{
> + sector_t this_sector = r1_bio->sector;
> + int len = r1_bio->sectors;
> + int disk;
> +
> + for (disk = 0 ; disk < conf->raid_disks * 2 ; disk++) {
> + struct md_rdev *rdev;
> + int read_len;
> +
> + if (r1_bio->bios[disk] == IO_BLOCKED)
> + continue;
> +
> + rdev = conf->mirrors[disk].rdev;
> + if (!rdev || test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
> + continue;
> +
> + /* choose the first disk even if it has some bad blocks. */
> + read_len = raid1_check_read_range(rdev, this_sector, &len);
> + if (read_len > 0) {
> + update_read_sectors(conf, disk, this_sector, read_len);
> + *max_sectors = read_len;
> + return disk;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return -1;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * This routine returns the disk from which the requested read should
> * be done. There is a per-array 'next expected sequential IO' sector
> @@ -603,7 +644,6 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect
> sector_t best_dist;
> unsigned int min_pending;
> struct md_rdev *rdev;
> - int choose_first;
>
> retry:
> sectors = r1_bio->sectors;
> @@ -613,10 +653,11 @@ 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_first = raid1_should_read_first(conf->mddev, this_sector,
> - sectors);
> clear_bit(R1BIO_FailFast, &r1_bio->state);
>
> + if (raid1_should_read_first(conf->mddev, this_sector, sectors))
> + return choose_first_rdev(conf, r1_bio, max_sectors);
> +
> for (disk = 0 ; disk < conf->raid_disks * 2 ; disk++) {
> sector_t dist;
> sector_t first_bad;
> @@ -662,8 +703,6 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect
> * bad_sectors from another device..
> */
> bad_sectors -= (this_sector - first_bad);
> - if (choose_first && sectors > bad_sectors)
> - sectors = bad_sectors;
> if (best_good_sectors > sectors)
> best_good_sectors = sectors;
>
> @@ -673,8 +712,6 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect
> best_good_sectors = good_sectors;
> best_disk = disk;
> }
> - if (choose_first)
> - break;
> }
> continue;
> } else {
> @@ -689,10 +726,6 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect
>
> pending = atomic_read(&rdev->nr_pending);
> dist = abs(this_sector - conf->mirrors[disk].head_position);
> - if (choose_first) {
> - best_disk = disk;
> - break;
> - }
> /* Don't change to another disk for sequential reads */
> if (conf->mirrors[disk].next_seq_sect == this_sector
> || dist == 0) {
> @@ -760,13 +793,9 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect
> rdev = conf->mirrors[best_disk].rdev;
> if (!rdev)
> goto retry;
> - atomic_inc(&rdev->nr_pending);
> - sectors = best_good_sectors;
> -
> - if (conf->mirrors[best_disk].next_seq_sect != this_sector)
> - conf->mirrors[best_disk].seq_start = this_sector;
>
> - conf->mirrors[best_disk].next_seq_sect = this_sector + sectors;
> + sectors = best_good_sectors;
> + update_read_sectors(conf, disk, this_sector, sectors);
> }
> *max_sectors = sectors;
>
> --
> 2.39.2
>
>
Hi
This patch looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Xiao Ni <xni@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists