lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] md/raid10: handle replacement devices in fix_recovery_read_error
From
Date
Hi,

在 2023/07/07 16:33, Song Liu 写道:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:42 AM <linan666@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Li Nan <linan122@huawei.com>
>>
>> In fix_recovery_read_error(), the handling of replacement devices is
>> missing. Add it. If io error is from replacement, error this device
>> directly. If io error is from other device, just set badblocks for
>> replacement.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Nan <linan122@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/md/raid10.c | 10 ++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
>> index 5105273f60e9..6d9025089455 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
>> @@ -2551,7 +2551,7 @@ static void fix_recovery_read_error(struct r10bio *r10_bio)
>>
>> while (sectors) {
>> int s = sectors;
>> - struct md_rdev *rdev;
>> + struct md_rdev *rdev, *repl;
>> sector_t addr;
>> int ok;
>>
>> @@ -2559,6 +2559,7 @@ static void fix_recovery_read_error(struct r10bio *r10_bio)
>> s = PAGE_SIZE >> 9;
>>
>> rdev = conf->mirrors[dr].rdev;
>> + repl = conf->mirrors[dw].replacement;
>> addr = r10_bio->devs[0].addr + sect,
>> ok = sync_page_io(rdev,
>> addr,
>> @@ -2580,6 +2581,9 @@ static void fix_recovery_read_error(struct r10bio *r10_bio)
>> set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED,
>> &rdev->mddev->recovery);
>> }
>> + if (repl && !sync_page_io(repl, addr, s << 9,
>> + pages[idx], REQ_OP_WRITE, false))
>> + md_error(mddev, repl);
>> }
>> if (!ok) {
>> /* We don't worry if we cannot set a bad block -
>> @@ -2592,7 +2596,9 @@ static void fix_recovery_read_error(struct r10bio *r10_bio)
>> /* need bad block on destination too */
>> rdev = conf->mirrors[dw].rdev;
>> addr = r10_bio->devs[1].addr + sect;
>> - if (!rdev_set_badblocks(rdev, addr, s, 0)) {
>> + if (!rdev_set_badblocks(rdev, addr, s, 0) ||
>> + (repl &&
>> + !rdev_set_badblocks(repl, addr, s, 0))) {
>
> Do we really want this in the if () statement? Shall we always set
> badblock on both rdev and repl?

I think this is wrong to set repl badblocks inside this, because if
setting badblocks for rdev failed, repl is still not handled.

By the way, I think it's better to at least try to read from all
possible copies before setting badblocks for repl.

Thanks,
Kuai
>
> Thanks,
> Song
>
>> /* just abort the recovery */
>> pr_notice("md/raid10:%s: recovery aborted due to read error\n",
>> mdname(mddev));
>> --
>> 2.39.2
>>
> .
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-07-10 15:01    [W:1.381 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site