linux/drivers/md/md.c

6423 lines
162 KiB

2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
md: restart recovery cleanly after device failure. When we get any IO error during a recovery (rebuilding a spare), we abort the recovery and restart it. For RAID6 (and multi-drive RAID1) it may not be best to restart at the beginning: when multiple failures can be tolerated, the recovery may be able to continue and re-doing all that has already been done doesn't make sense. We already have the infrastructure to record where a recovery is up to and restart from there, but it is not being used properly. This is because: - We sometimes abort with MD_RECOVERY_ERR rather than just MD_RECOVERY_INTR, which causes the recovery not be be checkpointed. - We remove spares and then re-added them which loses important state information. The distinction between MD_RECOVERY_ERR and MD_RECOVERY_INTR really isn't needed. If there is an error, the relevant drive will be marked as Faulty, and that is enough to ensure correct handling of the error. So we first remove MD_RECOVERY_ERR, changing some of the uses of it to MD_RECOVERY_INTR. Then we cause the attempt to remove a non-faulty device from an array to fail (unless recovery is impossible as the array is too degraded). Then when remove_and_add_spares attempts to remove the devices on which recovery can continue, it will fail, they will remain in place, and recovery will continue on them as desired. Issue: If we are halfway through rebuilding a spare and another drive fails, and a new spare is immediately available, do we want to: 1/ complete the current rebuild, then go back and rebuild the new spare or 2/ restart the rebuild from the start and rebuild both devices in parallel. Both options can be argued for. The code currently takes option 2 as a/ this requires least code change b/ this results in a minimally-degraded array in minimal time. Cc: "Eivind Sarto" <ivan@kasenna.com> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-05-23 13:04:39 -07:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
2005-11-08 21:39:34 -08:00
md: restart recovery cleanly after device failure. When we get any IO error during a recovery (rebuilding a spare), we abort the recovery and restart it. For RAID6 (and multi-drive RAID1) it may not be best to restart at the beginning: when multiple failures can be tolerated, the recovery may be able to continue and re-doing all that has already been done doesn't make sense. We already have the infrastructure to record where a recovery is up to and restart from there, but it is not being used properly. This is because: - We sometimes abort with MD_RECOVERY_ERR rather than just MD_RECOVERY_INTR, which causes the recovery not be be checkpointed. - We remove spares and then re-added them which loses important state information. The distinction between MD_RECOVERY_ERR and MD_RECOVERY_INTR really isn't needed. If there is an error, the relevant drive will be marked as Faulty, and that is enough to ensure correct handling of the error. So we first remove MD_RECOVERY_ERR, changing some of the uses of it to MD_RECOVERY_INTR. Then we cause the attempt to remove a non-faulty device from an array to fail (unless recovery is impossible as the array is too degraded). Then when remove_and_add_spares attempts to remove the devices on which recovery can continue, it will fail, they will remain in place, and recovery will continue on them as desired. Issue: If we are halfway through rebuilding a spare and another drive fails, and a new spare is immediately available, do we want to: 1/ complete the current rebuild, then go back and rebuild the new spare or 2/ restart the rebuild from the start and rebuild both devices in parallel. Both options can be argued for. The code currently takes option 2 as a/ this requires least code change b/ this results in a minimally-degraded array in minimal time. Cc: "Eivind Sarto" <ivan@kasenna.com> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-05-23 13:04:39 -07:00
md: restart recovery cleanly after device failure. When we get any IO error during a recovery (rebuilding a spare), we abort the recovery and restart it. For RAID6 (and multi-drive RAID1) it may not be best to restart at the beginning: when multiple failures can be tolerated, the recovery may be able to continue and re-doing all that has already been done doesn't make sense. We already have the infrastructure to record where a recovery is up to and restart from there, but it is not being used properly. This is because: - We sometimes abort with MD_RECOVERY_ERR rather than just MD_RECOVERY_INTR, which causes the recovery not be be checkpointed. - We remove spares and then re-added them which loses important state information. The distinction between MD_RECOVERY_ERR and MD_RECOVERY_INTR really isn't needed. If there is an error, the relevant drive will be marked as Faulty, and that is enough to ensure correct handling of the error. So we first remove MD_RECOVERY_ERR, changing some of the uses of it to MD_RECOVERY_INTR. Then we cause the attempt to remove a non-faulty device from an array to fail (unless recovery is impossible as the array is too degraded). Then when remove_and_add_spares attempts to remove the devices on which recovery can continue, it will fail, they will remain in place, and recovery will continue on them as desired. Issue: If we are halfway through rebuilding a spare and another drive fails, and a new spare is immediately available, do we want to: 1/ complete the current rebuild, then go back and rebuild the new spare or 2/ restart the rebuild from the start and rebuild both devices in parallel. Both options can be argued for. The code currently takes option 2 as a/ this requires least code change b/ this results in a minimally-degraded array in minimal time. Cc: "Eivind Sarto" <ivan@kasenna.com> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-05-23 13:04:39 -07:00
md: restart recovery cleanly after device failure. When we get any IO error during a recovery (rebuilding a spare), we abort the recovery and restart it. For RAID6 (and multi-drive RAID1) it may not be best to restart at the beginning: when multiple failures can be tolerated, the recovery may be able to continue and re-doing all that has already been done doesn't make sense. We already have the infrastructure to record where a recovery is up to and restart from there, but it is not being used properly. This is because: - We sometimes abort with MD_RECOVERY_ERR rather than just MD_RECOVERY_INTR, which causes the recovery not be be checkpointed. - We remove spares and then re-added them which loses important state information. The distinction between MD_RECOVERY_ERR and MD_RECOVERY_INTR really isn't needed. If there is an error, the relevant drive will be marked as Faulty, and that is enough to ensure correct handling of the error. So we first remove MD_RECOVERY_ERR, changing some of the uses of it to MD_RECOVERY_INTR. Then we cause the attempt to remove a non-faulty device from an array to fail (unless recovery is impossible as the array is too degraded). Then when remove_and_add_spares attempts to remove the devices on which recovery can continue, it will fail, they will remain in place, and recovery will continue on them as desired. Issue: If we are halfway through rebuilding a spare and another drive fails, and a new spare is immediately available, do we want to: 1/ complete the current rebuild, then go back and rebuild the new spare or 2/ restart the rebuild from the start and rebuild both devices in parallel. Both options can be argued for. The code currently takes option 2 as a/ this requires least code change b/ this results in a minimally-degraded array in minimal time. Cc: "Eivind Sarto" <ivan@kasenna.com> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-05-23 13:04:39 -07:00
md: restart recovery cleanly after device failure. When we get any IO error during a recovery (rebuilding a spare), we abort the recovery and restart it. For RAID6 (and multi-drive RAID1) it may not be best to restart at the beginning: when multiple failures can be tolerated, the recovery may be able to continue and re-doing all that has already been done doesn't make sense. We already have the infrastructure to record where a recovery is up to and restart from there, but it is not being used properly. This is because: - We sometimes abort with MD_RECOVERY_ERR rather than just MD_RECOVERY_INTR, which causes the recovery not be be checkpointed. - We remove spares and then re-added them which loses important state information. The distinction between MD_RECOVERY_ERR and MD_RECOVERY_INTR really isn't needed. If there is an error, the relevant drive will be marked as Faulty, and that is enough to ensure correct handling of the error. So we first remove MD_RECOVERY_ERR, changing some of the uses of it to MD_RECOVERY_INTR. Then we cause the attempt to remove a non-faulty device from an array to fail (unless recovery is impossible as the array is too degraded). Then when remove_and_add_spares attempts to remove the devices on which recovery can continue, it will fail, they will remain in place, and recovery will continue on them as desired. Issue: If we are halfway through rebuilding a spare and another drive fails, and a new spare is immediately available, do we want to: 1/ complete the current rebuild, then go back and rebuild the new spare or 2/ restart the rebuild from the start and rebuild both devices in parallel. Both options can be argued for. The code currently takes option 2 as a/ this requires least code change b/ this results in a minimally-degraded array in minimal time. Cc: "Eivind Sarto" <ivan@kasenna.com> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-05-23 13:04:39 -07:00
md: restart recovery cleanly after device failure. When we get any IO error during a recovery (rebuilding a spare), we abort the recovery and restart it. For RAID6 (and multi-drive RAID1) it may not be best to restart at the beginning: when multiple failures can be tolerated, the recovery may be able to continue and re-doing all that has already been done doesn't make sense. We already have the infrastructure to record where a recovery is up to and restart from there, but it is not being used properly. This is because: - We sometimes abort with MD_RECOVERY_ERR rather than just MD_RECOVERY_INTR, which causes the recovery not be be checkpointed. - We remove spares and then re-added them which loses important state information. The distinction between MD_RECOVERY_ERR and MD_RECOVERY_INTR really isn't needed. If there is an error, the relevant drive will be marked as Faulty, and that is enough to ensure correct handling of the error. So we first remove MD_RECOVERY_ERR, changing some of the uses of it to MD_RECOVERY_INTR. Then we cause the attempt to remove a non-faulty device from an array to fail (unless recovery is impossible as the array is too degraded). Then when remove_and_add_spares attempts to remove the devices on which recovery can continue, it will fail, they will remain in place, and recovery will continue on them as desired. Issue: If we are halfway through rebuilding a spare and another drive fails, and a new spare is immediately available, do we want to: 1/ complete the current rebuild, then go back and rebuild the new spare or 2/ restart the rebuild from the start and rebuild both devices in parallel. Both options can be argued for. The code currently takes option 2 as a/ this requires least code change b/ this results in a minimally-degraded array in minimal time. Cc: "Eivind Sarto" <ivan@kasenna.com> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-05-23 13:04:39 -07:00
md: restart recovery cleanly after device failure. When we get any IO error during a recovery (rebuilding a spare), we abort the recovery and restart it. For RAID6 (and multi-drive RAID1) it may not be best to restart at the beginning: when multiple failures can be tolerated, the recovery may be able to continue and re-doing all that has already been done doesn't make sense. We already have the infrastructure to record where a recovery is up to and restart from there, but it is not being used properly. This is because: - We sometimes abort with MD_RECOVERY_ERR rather than just MD_RECOVERY_INTR, which causes the recovery not be be checkpointed. - We remove spares and then re-added them which loses important state information. The distinction between MD_RECOVERY_ERR and MD_RECOVERY_INTR really isn't needed. If there is an error, the relevant drive will be marked as Faulty, and that is enough to ensure correct handling of the error. So we first remove MD_RECOVERY_ERR, changing some of the uses of it to MD_RECOVERY_INTR. Then we cause the attempt to remove a non-faulty device from an array to fail (unless recovery is impossible as the array is too degraded). Then when remove_and_add_spares attempts to remove the devices on which recovery can continue, it will fail, they will remain in place, and recovery will continue on them as desired. Issue: If we are halfway through rebuilding a spare and another drive fails, and a new spare is immediately available, do we want to: 1/ complete the current rebuild, then go back and rebuild the new spare or 2/ restart the rebuild from the start and rebuild both devices in parallel. Both options can be argued for. The code currently takes option 2 as a/ this requires least code change b/ this results in a minimally-degraded array in minimal time. Cc: "Eivind Sarto" <ivan@kasenna.com> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-05-23 13:04:39 -07:00
md: restart recovery cleanly after device failure. When we get any IO error during a recovery (rebuilding a spare), we abort the recovery and restart it. For RAID6 (and multi-drive RAID1) it may not be best to restart at the beginning: when multiple failures can be tolerated, the recovery may be able to continue and re-doing all that has already been done doesn't make sense. We already have the infrastructure to record where a recovery is up to and restart from there, but it is not being used properly. This is because: - We sometimes abort with MD_RECOVERY_ERR rather than just MD_RECOVERY_INTR, which causes the recovery not be be checkpointed. - We remove spares and then re-added them which loses important state information. The distinction between MD_RECOVERY_ERR and MD_RECOVERY_INTR really isn't needed. If there is an error, the relevant drive will be marked as Faulty, and that is enough to ensure correct handling of the error. So we first remove MD_RECOVERY_ERR, changing some of the uses of it to MD_RECOVERY_INTR. Then we cause the attempt to remove a non-faulty device from an array to fail (unless recovery is impossible as the array is too degraded). Then when remove_and_add_spares attempts to remove the devices on which recovery can continue, it will fail, they will remain in place, and recovery will continue on them as desired. Issue: If we are halfway through rebuilding a spare and another drive fails, and a new spare is immediately available, do we want to: 1/ complete the current rebuild, then go back and rebuild the new spare or 2/ restart the rebuild from the start and rebuild both devices in parallel. Both options can be argued for. The code currently takes option 2 as a/ this requires least code change b/ this results in a minimally-degraded array in minimal time. Cc: "Eivind Sarto" <ivan@kasenna.com> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-05-23 13:04:39 -07:00
[PATCH] sysctl: remove insert_at_head from register_sysctl The semantic effect of insert_at_head is that it would allow new registered sysctl entries to override existing sysctl entries of the same name. Which is pain for caching and the proc interface never implemented. I have done an audit and discovered that none of the current users of register_sysctl care as (excpet for directories) they do not register duplicate sysctl entries. So this patch simply removes the support for overriding existing entries in the sys_sysctl interface since no one uses it or cares and it makes future enhancments harder. Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> Acked-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> Acked-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> Cc: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> Cc: Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com> Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@ucw.cz> Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> Cc: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com> Cc: David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-02-14 00:34:09 -08:00