[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e88ac955-9733-4e57-830b-d326557d189a@fwd.mgml.me>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2025 15:30:29 +0900
From: Kenta Akagi <k@....mgml.me>
To: Yu Kuai <hailan@...uai.org.cn>, yukuai1@...weicloud.com, song@...nel.org,
mtkaczyk@...nel.org, shli@...com, jgq516@...il.com
Cc: linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yukuai3@...wei.com, k@....mgml.me
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/9] md/raid1,raid10: Don't set MD_BROKEN on failfast
bio failure
Hi,
I have changed my email address because our primary MX server
suddenly started rejecting non-DKIM mail.
On 2025/09/19 10:36, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 在 2025/9/18 23:22, Kenta Akagi 写道:
>>>> @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ static void raid1_end_write_request(struct bio *bio)
>>>> (bio->bi_opf & MD_FAILFAST) &&
>>>> /* We never try FailFast to WriteMostly devices */
>>>> !test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags)) {
>>>> - md_error(r1_bio->mddev, rdev);
>>>> + md_bio_failure_error(r1_bio->mddev, rdev, bio);
>>>> }
>>> Can following check of faulty replaced with return value?
>> In the case where raid1_end_write_request is called for a non-failfast IO,
>> and the rdev has already been marked Faulty by another bio, it must not retry too.
>> I think it would be simpler not to use a return value here.
>
> You can just add Faulty check inside md_bio_failure_error() as well, and both
> failfast and writemostly check.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand this part.
In raid1_end_write_request, this code path is also used for a regular bio,
not only for FailFast.
You mean to change md_bio_failure_error as follows:
* If the rdev is Faulty, immediately return true.
* If the given bio is Failfast and the rdev is not the lastdev, call md_error.
* If the given bio is not Failfast, do nothing and return false.
And then apply this?
This is complicated. Wouldn't it be better to keep the Faulty check as it is?
@@ -466,18 +466,12 @@ static void raid1_end_write_request(struct bio *bio)
set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED, &
conf->mddev->recovery);
- if (test_bit(FailFast, &rdev->flags) &&
- (bio->bi_opf & MD_FAILFAST) &&
- /* We never try FailFast to WriteMostly devices */
- !test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags)) {
- md_error(r1_bio->mddev, rdev);
- }
-
/*
* When the device is faulty, it is not necessary to
* handle write error.
*/
- if (!test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
+ if (!test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags) ||
+ !md_bio_failure_error(r1_bio->mddev, rdev, bio))
set_bit(R1BIO_WriteError, &r1_bio->state);
else {
/* Finished with this branch */
Or do you mean a fix like this?
@@ -466,23 +466,24 @@ static void raid1_end_write_request(struct bio *bio)
set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED, &
conf->mddev->recovery);
- if (test_bit(FailFast, &rdev->flags) &&
- (bio->bi_opf & MD_FAILFAST) &&
- /* We never try FailFast to WriteMostly devices */
- !test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags)) {
- md_error(r1_bio->mddev, rdev);
- }
-
/*
* When the device is faulty, it is not necessary to
* handle write error.
*/
- if (!test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
- set_bit(R1BIO_WriteError, &r1_bio->state);
- else {
+ if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags) ||
+ (
+ test_bit(FailFast, &rdev->flags) &&
+ (bio->bi_opf & MD_FAILFAST) &&
+ /* We never try FailFast to WriteMostly devices */
+ !test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags) &&
+ md_bio_failure_error(r1_bio->mddev, rdev, bio)
+ )
+ ) {
/* Finished with this branch */
r1_bio->bios[mirror] = NULL;
to_put = bio;
+ } else {
+ set_bit(R1BIO_WriteError, &r1_bio->state);
}
} else {
/*
Thanks,
Akagi
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists