linux/drivers/md/raid10.c

2301 lines
61 KiB

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: the md RAID10 resync thread could cause a md RAID10 array deadlock This message describes another issue about md RAID10 found by testing the 2.6.24 md RAID10 using new scsi fault injection framework. Abstract: When a scsi error results in disabling a disk during RAID10 recovery, the resync threads of md RAID10 could stall. This case, the raid array has already been broken and it may not matter. But I think stall is not preferable. If it occurs, even shutdown or reboot will fail because of resource busy. The deadlock mechanism: The r10bio_s structure has a "remaining" member to keep track of BIOs yet to be handled when recovering. The "remaining" counter is incremented when building a BIO in sync_request() and is decremented when finish a BIO in end_sync_write(). If building a BIO fails for some reasons in sync_request(), the "remaining" should be decremented if it has already been incremented. I found a case where this decrement is forgotten. This causes a md_do_sync() deadlock because md_do_sync() waits for md_done_sync() called by end_sync_write(), but end_sync_write() never calls md_done_sync() because of the "remaining" counter mismatch. For example, this problem would be reproduced in the following case: Personalities : [raid10] md0 : active raid10 sdf1[4] sde1[5](F) sdd1[2] sdc1[1] sdb1[6](F) 3919616 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/2] [_UU_] [>....................] recovery = 2.2% (45376/1959808) finish=0.7min speed=45376K/sec This case, sdf1 is recovering, sdb1 and sde1 are disabled. An additional error with detaching sdd will cause a deadlock. md0 : active raid10 sdf1[4] sde1[5](F) sdd1[6](F) sdc1[1] sdb1[7](F) 3919616 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/1] [_U__] [=>...................] recovery = 5.0% (99520/1959808) finish=5.9min speed=5237K/sec 2739 ? S< 0:17 [md0_raid10] 28608 ? D< 0:00 [md0_resync] 28629 pts/1 Ss 0:00 bash 28830 pts/1 R+ 0:00 ps ax 31819 ? D< 0:00 [kjournald] The resync thread keeps working, but actually it is deadlocked. Patch: By this patch, the remaining counter will be decremented if needed. 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>
2008-03-04 14:29:37 -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