| Message ID | 20230820090949.2874537-7-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | md: make rdev addition and removal independent from daemon thread | expand |
On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:13 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote: > > From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> > > There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and > prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync(). > > Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> > --- > drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c > index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/md.c > +++ b/drivers/md/md.c > @@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev) > !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags); > } > > +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) > +{ > + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || > + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) > + return false; > + > + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) && Instead of straightforward refactoring, I hope we can make these rdev_* helpers more meaningful, and hopefullly reusable. For example, let's define the meaning of "addable", and write the function to match that meaning. In this case, I think we shouldn't check md_is_rdwr() inside rdev_addable(). Does this make sense? Thanks, Song > + !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 && > + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags))) > + return false; > + > + return true; > +} > + > static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, > struct md_rdev *this) > { > @@ -9227,20 +9241,10 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, > continue; > if (rdev_is_spare(rdev)) > spares++; > - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags)) > + if (!rdev_addable(rdev)) > continue; > - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0) > - continue; > - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) > - continue; > - if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) { > - if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) && > - !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 && > - !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags))) > - continue; > - > + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) > rdev->recovery_offset = 0; > - } > if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) { > /* failure here is OK */ > sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev); > -- > 2.39.2 >
Hi, 在 2023/08/22 7:22, Song Liu 写道: > On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:13 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote: >> >> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> >> >> There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and >> prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> >> --- >> drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------ >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c >> index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644 >> --- a/drivers/md/md.c >> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c >> @@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev) >> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags); >> } >> >> +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) >> +{ >> + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || >> + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) >> + return false; >> + >> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) && > > Instead of straightforward refactoring, I hope we can make these rdev_* > helpers more meaningful, and hopefullly reusable. For example, let's define > the meaning of "addable", and write the function to match that meaning. In > this case, I think we shouldn't check md_is_rdwr() inside rdev_addable(). > > Does this make sense? Yes, this make sense, rdev can be added to read-only array. There are total three callers of pers->hot_add_sisk, I'll try to find if they have common conditions. Thanks, Kuai > > Thanks, > Song > > >> + !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 && >> + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags))) >> + return false; >> + >> + return true; >> +} >> + >> static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, >> struct md_rdev *this) >> { >> @@ -9227,20 +9241,10 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, >> continue; >> if (rdev_is_spare(rdev)) >> spares++; >> - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags)) >> + if (!rdev_addable(rdev)) >> continue; >> - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0) >> - continue; >> - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) >> - continue; >> - if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) { >> - if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) && >> - !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 && >> - !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags))) >> - continue; >> - >> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) >> rdev->recovery_offset = 0; >> - } >> if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) { >> /* failure here is OK */ >> sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev); >> -- >> 2.39.2 >> > . >
Hi, 在 2023/08/22 10:17, Yu Kuai 写道: > Hi, > > 在 2023/08/22 7:22, Song Liu 写道: >> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:13 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote: >>> >>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> >>> >>> There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and >>> prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------ >>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c >>> index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c >>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c >>> @@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev) >>> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags); >>> } >>> >>> +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) >>> +{ >>> + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || >>> + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && >>> !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) && >> >> Instead of straightforward refactoring, I hope we can make these rdev_* >> helpers more meaningful, and hopefullly reusable. For example, let's >> define >> the meaning of "addable", and write the function to match that >> meaning. In >> this case, I think we shouldn't check md_is_rdwr() inside rdev_addable(). >> >> Does this make sense? > > Yes, this make sense, rdev can be added to read-only array. > > There are total three callers of pers->hot_add_sisk, I'll try to find if > they have common conditions. Unfortunately, the conditions is quite different, and It's difficult to factor out a common helper for them to use. In this case, !md_is_rdwr() is one of the four conditions, which means if the array is read-only, there is a special case that rdev can't be added to the configuration. Perhaps it's okay to keep this? Thanks, Kuai > > Thanks, > Kuai > >> >> Thanks, >> Song >> >> >>> + !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 && >>> + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags))) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + return true; >>> +} >>> + >>> static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, >>> struct md_rdev *this) >>> { >>> @@ -9227,20 +9241,10 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev >>> *mddev, >>> continue; >>> if (rdev_is_spare(rdev)) >>> spares++; >>> - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags)) >>> + if (!rdev_addable(rdev)) >>> continue; >>> - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0) >>> - continue; >>> - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) >>> - continue; >>> - if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) { >>> - if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) && >>> - !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 && >>> - !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags))) >>> - continue; >>> - >>> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) >>> rdev->recovery_offset = 0; >>> - } >>> if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) { >>> /* failure here is OK */ >>> sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev); >>> -- >>> 2.39.2 >>> >> . >> > > . >
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 8:04 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > 在 2023/08/22 10:17, Yu Kuai 写道: > > Hi, > > > > 在 2023/08/22 7:22, Song Liu 写道: > >> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:13 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> > >>> > >>> There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and > >>> prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync(). > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------ > >>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c > >>> index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c > >>> @@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev) > >>> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags); > >>> } > >>> > >>> +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) > >>> +{ > >>> + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || > >>> + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) > >>> + return false; > >>> + > >>> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && > >>> !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) && > >> > >> Instead of straightforward refactoring, I hope we can make these rdev_* > >> helpers more meaningful, and hopefullly reusable. For example, let's > >> define > >> the meaning of "addable", and write the function to match that > >> meaning. In > >> this case, I think we shouldn't check md_is_rdwr() inside rdev_addable(). > >> > >> Does this make sense? > > > > Yes, this make sense, rdev can be added to read-only array. > > > > There are total three callers of pers->hot_add_sisk, I'll try to find if > > they have common conditions. > > Unfortunately, the conditions is quite different, and It's difficult to > factor out a common helper for them to use. > > In this case, !md_is_rdwr() is one of the four conditions, which means > if the array is read-only, there is a special case that rdev can't be > added to the configuration. Perhaps it's okay to keep this? My main concern is that rdev_addable() is not making the code easier to understand. We have a few different cases at this point: 1. rdev is not suitable for add (Faulty, raid_disk>=0, Candidate); 2. rdev is Journal; 3. Re-add rdev to RO array; 4. Non-re-add rdev to RO array; 5. Other cases. Current rdev_addable() handles more or less all of this, which is confusing. Maybe we can do something along similar to the following (not tested). Does this look more clear? Thanks, Song diff --git i/drivers/md/md.c w/drivers/md/md.c index 78be7811a89f..8cb855d03e0a 100644 --- i/drivers/md/md.c +++ w/drivers/md/md.c @@ -9117,6 +9117,20 @@ void md_do_sync(struct md_thread *thread) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(md_do_sync); +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) +{ + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) + return false; + return true; +} + +static bool rdev_is_readd(struct md_rdev *rdev) +{ + return rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 || + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags); +} + static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, struct md_rdev *this) { @@ -9176,25 +9190,24 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, rdev_for_each(rdev, mddev) { if (this && this != rdev) continue; - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags)) - continue; if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0 && !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) && !test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) spares++; - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0) + + if (!rdev_addable(rdev)) continue; - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) + + if (test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) + goto hot_add_disk; + + if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) && !rdev_is_readd(rdev)) continue; - if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) { - if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) && - !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 && - !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags))) - continue; - rdev->recovery_offset = 0; - } + rdev->recovery_offset = 0; + + hot_add_disk: if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) { /* failure here is OK */ sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev);
Hi, 在 2023/08/23 13:26, Song Liu 写道: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 8:04 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> 在 2023/08/22 10:17, Yu Kuai 写道: >>> Hi, >>> >>> 在 2023/08/22 7:22, Song Liu 写道: >>>> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:13 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> >>>>> >>>>> There are no functional changes, just to make the code simpler and >>>>> prepare to delay remove_and_add_spares() to md_start_sync(). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/md/md.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------ >>>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c >>>>> index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c >>>>> @@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev) >>>>> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || >>>>> + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) >>>>> + return false; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && >>>>> !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) && >>>> >>>> Instead of straightforward refactoring, I hope we can make these rdev_* >>>> helpers more meaningful, and hopefullly reusable. For example, let's >>>> define >>>> the meaning of "addable", and write the function to match that >>>> meaning. In >>>> this case, I think we shouldn't check md_is_rdwr() inside rdev_addable(). >>>> >>>> Does this make sense? >>> >>> Yes, this make sense, rdev can be added to read-only array. >>> >>> There are total three callers of pers->hot_add_sisk, I'll try to find if >>> they have common conditions. >> >> Unfortunately, the conditions is quite different, and It's difficult to >> factor out a common helper for them to use. >> >> In this case, !md_is_rdwr() is one of the four conditions, which means >> if the array is read-only, there is a special case that rdev can't be >> added to the configuration. Perhaps it's okay to keep this? > > My main concern is that rdev_addable() is not making the code easier to > understand. We have a few different cases at this point: > > 1. rdev is not suitable for add (Faulty, raid_disk>=0, Candidate); > 2. rdev is Journal; > 3. Re-add rdev to RO array; > 4. Non-re-add rdev to RO array; > 5. Other cases. > > Current rdev_addable() handles more or less all of this, which is > confusing. Maybe we can do something along similar to the > following (not tested). Does this look more clear? > > Thanks, > Song > > diff --git i/drivers/md/md.c w/drivers/md/md.c > index 78be7811a89f..8cb855d03e0a 100644 > --- i/drivers/md/md.c > +++ w/drivers/md/md.c > @@ -9117,6 +9117,20 @@ void md_do_sync(struct md_thread *thread) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(md_do_sync); > > +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) > +{ > + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || > + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) > + return false; > + return true; > +} > + > +static bool rdev_is_readd(struct md_rdev *rdev) > +{ > + return rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 || > + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags); This should use '&&' instead of '||' ? > +} > + > static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, > struct md_rdev *this) > { > @@ -9176,25 +9190,24 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, > rdev_for_each(rdev, mddev) { > if (this && this != rdev) > continue; > - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags)) > - continue; > if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0 && > !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) && > !test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && > !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) > spares++; > - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0) > + > + if (!rdev_addable(rdev)) > continue; > - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) > + > + if (test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) > + goto hot_add_disk; > + I understand what you mean now, but I must use the exact same judgement in the new helper md_spares_need_change() in patch 7, there will be redundant code this way. How about this, rework rdev_addable(): static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) { + /* rdev is already used, don't add it again. */ if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) return false; ~ /* Allow to add journal disk. */ ~ if (test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) ~_ return true; ~ /* Allow to add if array is read-write. */ + if (md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev)) + return true; + + /* + * For read-only array, only allow to readd a rdev. And if bitmap is + * used, don't allow to readd a rdev that is too old. + */ + if (rdev->saved_raid_disk >=0 && !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags)) + return true; + + return false; } Thanks, Kuai > + if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) && !rdev_is_readd(rdev)) > continue; > - if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) { > - if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) && > - !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 && > - !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags))) > - continue; > > - rdev->recovery_offset = 0; > - } > + rdev->recovery_offset = 0; > + > + hot_add_disk: > if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) { > /* failure here is OK */ > sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev); > . >
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 1:37 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote: > [...] > > diff --git i/drivers/md/md.c w/drivers/md/md.c > > index 78be7811a89f..8cb855d03e0a 100644 > > --- i/drivers/md/md.c > > +++ w/drivers/md/md.c > > @@ -9117,6 +9117,20 @@ void md_do_sync(struct md_thread *thread) > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(md_do_sync); > > > > +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) > > +{ > > + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || > > + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) > > + return false; > > + return true; > > +} > > + > > +static bool rdev_is_readd(struct md_rdev *rdev) > > +{ > > + return rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 || > > + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags); > This should use '&&' instead of '||' ? > > > +} > > + > > static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, > > struct md_rdev *this) > > { > > @@ -9176,25 +9190,24 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, > > rdev_for_each(rdev, mddev) { > > if (this && this != rdev) > > continue; > > - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags)) > > - continue; > > if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0 && > > !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) && > > !test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && > > !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) > > spares++; > > - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0) > > + > > + if (!rdev_addable(rdev)) > > continue; > > - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) > > + > > + if (test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) > > + goto hot_add_disk; > > + > > I understand what you mean now, but I must use the exact same judgement > in the new helper md_spares_need_change() in patch 7, there will be > redundant code this way. > > How about this, rework rdev_addable(): Yeah, this was another option that I was thinking about. Let's go with this version. Thanks, Song > > static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) > { > + /* rdev is already used, don't add it again. */ > if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || > test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) > return false; > > ~ /* Allow to add journal disk. */ > ~ if (test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) > ~_ return true; > > ~ /* Allow to add if array is read-write. */ > + if (md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev)) > + return true; > + > + /* > + * For read-only array, only allow to readd a rdev. And if > bitmap is > + * used, don't allow to readd a rdev that is too old. > + */ > + if (rdev->saved_raid_disk >=0 && !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, > &rdev->flags)) > + return true; > + > + return false; > }
Hi, 在 2023/08/23 19:25, Song Liu 写道: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 1:37 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote: >> > [...] >>> diff --git i/drivers/md/md.c w/drivers/md/md.c >>> index 78be7811a89f..8cb855d03e0a 100644 >>> --- i/drivers/md/md.c >>> +++ w/drivers/md/md.c >>> @@ -9117,6 +9117,20 @@ void md_do_sync(struct md_thread *thread) >>> } >>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(md_do_sync); >>> >>> +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) >>> +{ >>> + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || >>> + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) >>> + return false; >>> + return true; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static bool rdev_is_readd(struct md_rdev *rdev) >>> +{ >>> + return rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 || >>> + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags); >> This should use '&&' instead of '||' ? >> >>> +} >>> + >>> static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, >>> struct md_rdev *this) >>> { >>> @@ -9176,25 +9190,24 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, >>> rdev_for_each(rdev, mddev) { >>> if (this && this != rdev) >>> continue; >>> - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags)) >>> - continue; >>> if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0 && >>> !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) && >>> !test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && >>> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) >>> spares++; >>> - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0) >>> + >>> + if (!rdev_addable(rdev)) >>> continue; >>> - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) >>> + >>> + if (test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) >>> + goto hot_add_disk; >>> + >> >> I understand what you mean now, but I must use the exact same judgement >> in the new helper md_spares_need_change() in patch 7, there will be >> redundant code this way. >> >> How about this, rework rdev_addable(): > > Yeah, this was another option that I was thinking about. Let's go with > this version. > Ok, and I'll do this for rdev_removeable() in patch 4 as well. Thanks, Kuai > Thanks, > Song > >> >> static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) >> { >> + /* rdev is already used, don't add it again. */ >> if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || >> test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) >> return false; >> >> ~ /* Allow to add journal disk. */ >> ~ if (test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) >> ~_ return true; >> >> ~ /* Allow to add if array is read-write. */ >> + if (md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev)) >> + return true; >> + >> + /* >> + * For read-only array, only allow to readd a rdev. And if >> bitmap is >> + * used, don't allow to readd a rdev that is too old. >> + */ >> + if (rdev->saved_raid_disk >=0 && !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, >> &rdev->flags)) >> + return true; >> + >> + return false; >> } > . >
diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c index 11d27c934fdd..cdc361c521d4 100644 --- a/drivers/md/md.c +++ b/drivers/md/md.c @@ -9177,6 +9177,20 @@ static bool rdev_is_spare(struct md_rdev *rdev) !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags); } +static bool rdev_addable(struct md_rdev *rdev) +{ + if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags) || rdev->raid_disk >= 0 || + test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) + return false; + + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags) && !md_is_rdwr(rdev->mddev) && + !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 && + !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags))) + return false; + + return true; +} + static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, struct md_rdev *this) { @@ -9227,20 +9241,10 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev, continue; if (rdev_is_spare(rdev)) spares++; - if (test_bit(Candidate, &rdev->flags)) + if (!rdev_addable(rdev)) continue; - if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0) - continue; - if (test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) - continue; - if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) { - if (!md_is_rdwr(mddev) && - !(rdev->saved_raid_disk >= 0 && - !test_bit(Bitmap_sync, &rdev->flags))) - continue; - + if (!test_bit(Journal, &rdev->flags)) rdev->recovery_offset = 0; - } if (mddev->pers->hot_add_disk(mddev, rdev) == 0) { /* failure here is OK */ sysfs_link_rdev(mddev, rdev);