[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240229095714.926789-9-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:57:11 +0800
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To: xni@...hat.com,
paul.e.luse@...ux.intel.com,
song@...nel.org,
neilb@...e.com,
shli@...com
Cc: linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yukuai3@...wei.com,
yukuai1@...weicloud.com,
yi.zhang@...wei.com,
yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: [PATCH md-6.9 v4 08/11] md/raid1: factor out choose_slow_rdev() from read_balance()
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 slow 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>
Reviewed-by: Xiao Ni <xni@...hat.com>
---
drivers/md/raid1.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
index 3149f22f1155..09b7e93a54b5 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
@@ -620,6 +620,53 @@ static int choose_first_rdev(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio,
return -1;
}
+static int choose_slow_rdev(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio,
+ int *max_sectors)
+{
+ sector_t this_sector = r1_bio->sector;
+ int bb_disk = -1;
+ int bb_read_len = 0;
+ int disk;
+
+ for (disk = 0 ; disk < conf->raid_disks * 2 ; disk++) {
+ struct md_rdev *rdev;
+ int len;
+ int read_len;
+
+ if (r1_bio->bios[disk] == IO_BLOCKED)
+ continue;
+
+ rdev = conf->mirrors[disk].rdev;
+ if (!rdev || test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags) ||
+ !test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags))
+ continue;
+
+ /* there are no bad blocks, we can use this disk */
+ len = r1_bio->sectors;
+ read_len = raid1_check_read_range(rdev, this_sector, &len);
+ if (read_len == r1_bio->sectors) {
+ update_read_sectors(conf, disk, this_sector, read_len);
+ return disk;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * there are partial bad blocks, choose the rdev with largest
+ * read length.
+ */
+ if (read_len > bb_read_len) {
+ bb_disk = disk;
+ bb_read_len = read_len;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (bb_disk != -1) {
+ *max_sectors = bb_read_len;
+ update_read_sectors(conf, bb_disk, this_sector, bb_read_len);
+ }
+
+ return bb_disk;
+}
+
/*
* This routine returns the disk from which the requested read should
* be done. There is a per-array 'next expected sequential IO' sector
@@ -673,23 +720,8 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect
if (!test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) &&
rdev->recovery_offset < this_sector + sectors)
continue;
- if (test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags)) {
- /* Don't balance among write-mostly, just
- * use the first as a last resort */
- if (best_dist_disk < 0) {
- if (is_badblock(rdev, this_sector, sectors,
- &first_bad, &bad_sectors)) {
- if (first_bad <= this_sector)
- /* Cannot use this */
- continue;
- best_good_sectors = first_bad - this_sector;
- } else
- best_good_sectors = sectors;
- best_dist_disk = disk;
- best_pending_disk = disk;
- }
+ if (test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags))
continue;
- }
/* This is a reasonable device to use. It might
* even be best.
*/
@@ -808,7 +840,10 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect
}
*max_sectors = sectors;
- return best_disk;
+ if (best_disk >= 0)
+ return best_disk;
+
+ return choose_slow_rdev(conf, r1_bio, max_sectors);
}
static void wake_up_barrier(struct r1conf *conf)
--
2.39.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists