linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] folio support for sync I/O in RAID

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]

Message-Id: <def3b536-7840-426a-9805-f62363174812@fnnas.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 01:02:45 +0800
From: "Yu Kuai" <yukuai@...as.com>
To: <linan666@...weicloud.com>, <song@...nel.org>
Cc: <xni@...hat.com>, <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>, 
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yangerkun@...wei.com>, 
	<yi.zhang@...wei.com>, <yukuai@...as.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] folio support for sync I/O in RAID

Hi,

在 2026/1/28 15:56, linan666@...weicloud.com 写道:
> From: Li Nan <linan122@...wei.com>
>
> This patchset adds folio support to sync operations in raid1/10.
> Previously, we used 16 * 4K pages for 64K sync I/O. With this change,
> we'll use a single 64K folio instead. Using folios reduces
> resync/recovery time by 20% on HDD.
>
> This is the first step towards full folio support in RAID. Going forward,
> I will replace the remaining page-based usage with folio.
>
> The patchset was tested with mdadm. Additional fault injection stress tests
> were run under file systems.

For conclusion, I think you can send patch 1,8,9 first, they're not quite
related to folio and can be applied. Then, please move patch 12,13 before patch 5
in the separate patch set, and looks like the number of patches can be small.

BTW, there are still pages in other context, do you plan to convert them?

>
> v2:
>   - Remove patch "md: use folio for bb_folio". It will be included in
>     a later patch set
>   - In patch 5:
>      1) fix typo
>      2) rewrite the logic of copying data in process_checks()
>      3) rename resync_get_all_folio() to resync_get_folio()
>      4) s/resync_pages *rps/resync_folio *rfs/g in
>         raid1_alloc_init_r1buf() and raid10_alloc_init_r10buf()
>   - Subsequent patches: Adapting conflicts caused by patch 5
>
> Li Nan (14):
>    md/raid1,raid10: clean up of RESYNC_SECTORS
>    md: introduce sync_folio_io for folio support in RAID
>    md/raid1: use folio for tmppage
>    md/raid10: use folio for tmppage
>    md/raid1,raid10: use folio for sync path IO
>    md: Clean up folio sync support related code
>    md/raid1: clean up useless sync_blocks handling in raid1_sync_request
>    md/raid1: fix IO error at logical block size granularity
>    md/raid10: fix IO error at logical block size granularity
>    md/raid1,raid10: clean up resync_fetch_folio
>    md: clean up resync_free_folio
>    md/raid1: clean up sync IO size calculation in raid1_sync_request
>    md/raid10: clean up sync IO size calculation in raid10_sync_request
>    md/raid1,raid10: fall back to smaller order if sync folio alloc fails
>
>   drivers/md/md.h       |   2 +
>   drivers/md/raid1.h    |   2 +-
>   drivers/md/raid10.h   |   2 +-
>   drivers/md/md.c       |  29 +++-
>   drivers/md/raid1-10.c |  81 ++++-------
>   drivers/md/raid1.c    | 233 ++++++++++++++-----------------
>   drivers/md/raid10.c   | 315 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>   7 files changed, 308 insertions(+), 356 deletions(-)
>
-- 
Thansk,
Kuai