From patchwork Thu Feb 29 09:57:12 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Yu Kuai X-Patchwork-Id: 13576935 Received: from dggsgout12.his.huawei.com (dggsgout12.his.huawei.com [45.249.212.56]) (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 6412C6351B; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.56 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709201006; cv=none; b=G1+nHzjfNL7VQO6/IE9vtXQiqE34ieAP573n9JiTi9b2nhT2jxFbdx5RzvAf4bSHPHq9FKAkb/cs8EU2x7G25CqNhJYnwxn4SaCAOJd7m2kkBrh0+GM0yH9A3TdmvH4UNUrkW6KNwZsc6OWd1JZ4zgY7CsGLML4Fb0rZMNsnBB0= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709201006; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EhjLKRLWm0IOAr5u4spyMI259ppaHJBS2tFzFSGV0UQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=l2kESrUPpeF9fwAS+0nWQpQyY/h+S+Rw3NX0qU1I6ElnU62J/7ry0ovrSPFpYze23WUXP+EvtAXiQFeyTyR+vZ6r40b2/7xlIR9Yp3cCME30vg1eeH5XfQzNNj6AQnF2dOe4YRYx4AeT/z/+VpQ0afkkoABgBVTUej3Ry84uYiQ= 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=45.249.212.56 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 [172.19.93.142]) by dggsgout12.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Tlmxw01F9z4f3khb; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:03:15 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail02.huawei.com (unknown [10.116.40.112]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425F11A016E; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:03:21 +0800 (CST) Received: from huaweicloud.com (unknown [10.175.104.67]) by APP1 (Coremail) with SMTP id cCh0CgAX5g5hVuBlFsMHFg--.11578S13; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:03:21 +0800 (CST) From: Yu Kuai To: xni@redhat.com, paul.e.luse@linux.intel.com, song@kernel.org, neilb@suse.com, shli@fb.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 v4 09/11] md/raid1: factor out choose_bb_rdev() from read_balance() Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:57:12 +0800 Message-Id: <20240229095714.926789-10-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 In-Reply-To: <20240229095714.926789-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> References: <20240229095714.926789-1-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: cCh0CgAX5g5hVuBlFsMHFg--.11578S13 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxZF47Ww4ftFyxtF4fWryUKFg_yoWrJF17pw 43KFWftryUX34fWws8J3yUuryft345Ga18JryxJ3WS9r93Cr90gFW8GryYgFyUCrWrA3W7 Zw15Zr4293WkKFDanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUPI14x267AKxVWrJVCq3wAFc2x0x2IEx4CE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0 rVWrJVCq3wAFIxvE14AKwVWUJVWUGwA2048vs2IY020E87I2jVAFwI0_JF0E3s1l82xGYI kIc2x26xkF7I0E14v26ryj6s0DM28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2 z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Ar0_tr1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr1j6F 4UJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26rxl6s0DM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW0oVCq 3wAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40EFcxC0VAKzVAqx4xG6I80ewAv7VC0I7 IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4U M4x0Y48IcxkI7VAKI48JM4x0x7Aq67IIx4CEVc8vx2IErcIFxwACI402YVCY1x02628vn2 kIc2xKxwCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwCFx2IqxVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwC20s026c02F40E 14v26r1j6r18MI8I3I0E7480Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_Jw0_GFylIx kGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUCVW8JwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAF wI0_Gr1j6F4UJwCI42IY6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC2z280aVAFwI0_Gr 0_Cr1lIxAIcVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x0JUQ SdkUUUUU= 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 rdev with bad blocks 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 | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c index 09b7e93a54b5..f6e75c123e5a 100644 --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c @@ -620,6 +620,44 @@ static int choose_first_rdev(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, return -1; } +static int choose_bb_rdev(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, + int *max_sectors) +{ + sector_t this_sector = r1_bio->sector; + int best_disk = -1; + int best_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; + + /* keep track of the disk with the most readable sectors. */ + len = r1_bio->sectors; + read_len = raid1_check_read_range(rdev, this_sector, &len); + if (read_len > best_len) { + best_disk = disk; + best_len = read_len; + } + } + + if (best_disk != -1) { + *max_sectors = best_len; + update_read_sectors(conf, best_disk, this_sector, best_len); + } + + return best_disk; +} + static int choose_slow_rdev(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sectors) { @@ -708,8 +746,6 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect for (disk = 0 ; disk < conf->raid_disks * 2 ; disk++) { sector_t dist; - sector_t first_bad; - int bad_sectors; unsigned int pending; rdev = conf->mirrors[disk].rdev; @@ -722,36 +758,8 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect continue; if (test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags)) continue; - /* This is a reasonable device to use. It might - * even be best. - */ - if (is_badblock(rdev, this_sector, sectors, - &first_bad, &bad_sectors)) { - if (best_dist < MaxSector) - /* already have a better device */ - continue; - if (first_bad <= this_sector) { - /* cannot read here. If this is the 'primary' - * device, then we must not read beyond - * bad_sectors from another device.. - */ - bad_sectors -= (this_sector - first_bad); - if (best_good_sectors > sectors) - best_good_sectors = sectors; - - } else { - sector_t good_sectors = first_bad - this_sector; - if (good_sectors > best_good_sectors) { - best_good_sectors = good_sectors; - best_disk = disk; - } - } + if (rdev_has_badblock(rdev, this_sector, sectors)) continue; - } else { - if ((sectors > best_good_sectors) && (best_disk >= 0)) - best_disk = -1; - best_good_sectors = sectors; - } if (best_disk >= 0) /* At least two disks to choose from so failfast is OK */ @@ -843,6 +851,15 @@ static int read_balance(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio, int *max_sect if (best_disk >= 0) return best_disk; + /* + * If we are here it means we didn't find a perfectly good disk so + * now spend a bit more time trying to find one with the most good + * sectors. + */ + disk = choose_bb_rdev(conf, r1_bio, max_sectors); + if (disk >= 0) + return disk; + return choose_slow_rdev(conf, r1_bio, max_sectors); }