From patchwork Wed Feb 28 11:43:30 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Yu Kuai X-Patchwork-Id: 13575346 Received: from dggsgout11.his.huawei.com (unknown [45.249.212.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A69CE70CA0; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:49:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.51 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709120980; cv=none; b=jzDIoqRx8NWwodmODZ4Rrw3bLXkDcHkK53EcMjHt3nZ+3xzzbJ0PwQQm54wvCPSnS3O9rjeJTjTxUU5y79HTZ6NCEfCyZbg1fMbdjlfP7zzC7MYsQcMiPCYX9VbjBPYMh1tKmbmwG+BvxzPowfv3N+HCDHYgnKtjntxkZGo9Rm0= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709120980; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Cxh4fxQ7w5CVZ5id4tlW0SqHG+Sx6hsAJJcAlSeebGg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=e63JZbZBJRW+/0GXwVof8l5m7LtR5582oMvI+HQK4GC+LLBP9kIL8uEcft2lpcsbuBLTvbZjyEcbS/tBBtkzWGHLnQWlboI/c8fbvcxMxigaR1S+k7YEGuRQXC9X4Gjnm+ygfrAbrQ+qZ0/I74sPlqKzFLRnEc9fvGTiPb+jUzw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.51 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.235]) by dggsgout11.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TlCM00WZlz4f3kL1; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 19:49:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail02.huawei.com (unknown [10.116.40.112]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1831A0283; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 19:49:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from huaweicloud.com (unknown [10.175.104.67]) by APP1 (Coremail) with SMTP id cCh0CgAn9g7IHd9l+eamFQ--.6969S12; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 19:49:35 +0800 (CST) From: Yu Kuai To: xni@redhat.com, paul.e.luse@linux.intel.com, song@kernel.org, shli@fb.com, neilb@suse.com Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yukuai3@huawei.com, yukuai1@huaweicloud.com, yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com Subject: [PATCH md-6.9 v3 08/11] md/raid1: factor out choose_slow_rdev() from read_balance() Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 19:43:30 +0800 Message-Id: <20240228114333.527222-9-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 In-Reply-To: <20240228114333.527222-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> References: <20240228114333.527222-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CM-TRANSID: cCh0CgAn9g7IHd9l+eamFQ--.6969S12 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxZF4rKw4kZryUuF1DXw1DJrb_yoW5ZF15pa y3CFWSqryUXry7uws8J3yDur9aga4rGFW8GryxJw1S9r9agrZ09FWxGFyagFyUWrWrJFyU Xw15ZrW293WktFDanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUP214x267AKxVWrJVCq3wAFc2x0x2IEx4CE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0 rVWrJVCq3wAFIxvE14AKwVWUJVWUGwA2048vs2IY020E87I2jVAFwI0_JF0E3s1l82xGYI kIc2x26xkF7I0E14v26ryj6s0DM28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2 z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Ar0_tr1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr1j6F 4UJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26rxl6s0DM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW0oVCq 3wAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40EFcxC0VAKzVAqx4xG6I80ewAv7VC0I7 IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4U M4x0Y48IcxkI7VAKI48JM4x0x7Aq67IIx4CEVc8vx2IErcIFxwACI402YVCY1x02628vn2 kIc2xKxwCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwCFx2IqxVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwC20s026c02F40E 14v26r1j6r18MI8I3I0E7480Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_Jw0_GFylIx kGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUCVW8JwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAF wI0_Cr0_Gr1UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVW8JV WxJwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r4UJVWxJrUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7VUbmZ X7UUUUU== X-CM-SenderInfo: 51xn3trlr6x35dzhxuhorxvhhfrp/ From: Yu Kuai 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 Signed-off-by: Paul Luse Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai Reviewed-by: Xiao Ni --- 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 b42b947bbd34..ccf05391d597 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)