linux/drivers/md/raid10.c

4762 lines
131 KiB

include cleanup: Update gfp.h and slab.h includes to prepare for breaking implicit slab.h inclusion from percpu.h percpu.h is included by sched.h and module.h and thus ends up being included when building most .c files. percpu.h includes slab.h which in turn includes gfp.h making everything defined by the two files universally available and complicating inclusion dependencies. percpu.h -> slab.h dependency is about to be removed. Prepare for this change by updating users of gfp and slab facilities include those headers directly instead of assuming availability. As this conversion needs to touch large number of source files, the following script is used as the basis of conversion. http://userweb.kernel.org/~tj/misc/slabh-sweep.py The script does the followings. * Scan files for gfp and slab usages and update includes such that only the necessary includes are there. ie. if only gfp is used, gfp.h, if slab is used, slab.h. * When the script inserts a new include, it looks at the include blocks and try to put the new include such that its order conforms to its surrounding. It's put in the include block which contains core kernel includes, in the same order that the rest are ordered - alphabetical, Christmas tree, rev-Xmas-tree or at the end if there doesn't seem to be any matching order. * If the script can't find a place to put a new include (mostly because the file doesn't have fitting include block), it prints out an error message indicating which .h file needs to be added to the file. The conversion was done in the following steps. 1. The initial automatic conversion of all .c files updated slightly over 4000 files, deleting around 700 includes and adding ~480 gfp.h and ~3000 slab.h inclusions. The script emitted errors for ~400 files. 2. Each error was manually checked. Some didn't need the inclusion, some needed manual addition while adding it to implementation .h or embedding .c file was more appropriate for others. This step added inclusions to around 150 files. 3. The script was run again and the output was compared to the edits from #2 to make sure no file was left behind. 4. Several build tests were done and a couple of problems were fixed. e.g. lib/decompress_*.c used malloc/free() wrappers around slab APIs requiring slab.h to be added manually. 5. The script was run on all .h files but without automatically editing them as sprinkling gfp.h and slab.h inclusions around .h files could easily lead to inclusion dependency hell. Most gfp.h inclusion directives were ignored as stuff from gfp.h was usually wildly available and often used in preprocessor macros. Each slab.h inclusion directive was examined and added manually as necessary. 6. percpu.h was updated not to include slab.h. 7. Build test were done on the following configurations and failures were fixed. CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL was turned off for all tests (as my distributed build env didn't work with gcov compiles) and a few more options had to be turned off depending on archs to make things build (like ipr on powerpc/64 which failed due to missing writeq). * x86 and x86_64 UP and SMP allmodconfig and a custom test config. * powerpc and powerpc64 SMP allmodconfig * sparc and sparc64 SMP allmodconfig * ia64 SMP allmodconfig * s390 SMP allmodconfig * alpha SMP allmodconfig * um on x86_64 SMP allmodconfig 8. percpu.h modifications were reverted so that it could be applied as a separate patch and serve as bisection point. Given the fact that I had only a couple of failures from tests on step 6, I'm fairly confident about the coverage of this conversion patch. If there is a breakage, it's likely to be something in one of the arch headers which should be easily discoverable easily on most builds of the specific arch. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Guess-its-ok-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>
2010-03-24 17:04:11 +09:00
MD RAID10: Improve redundancy for 'far' and 'offset' algorithms (part 1) The MD RAID10 'far' and 'offset' algorithms make copies of entire stripe widths - copying them to a different location on the same devices after shifting the stripe. An example layout of each follows below: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 L G H I J K ... "offset" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 G H I J K L L G H I J K ... Redundancy for these algorithms is gained by shifting the copied stripes one device to the right. This patch proposes that array be divided into sets of adjacent devices and when the stripe copies are shifted, they wrap on set boundaries rather than the array size boundary. That is, for the purposes of shifting, the copies are confined to their sets within the array. The sets are 'near_copies * far_copies' in size. The above "far" algorithm example would change to: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... B A D C F E --> Copy of stripe0, shifted 1, 2-dev sets H G J I L K Dev sets are 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 ... This has the affect of improving the redundancy of the array. We can always sustain at least one failure, but sometimes more than one can be handled. In the first examples, the pairs of devices that CANNOT fail together are: (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) (4,5) (5,6) (1, 6) [40% of possible pairs] In the example where the copies are confined to sets, the pairs of devices that cannot fail together are: (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) [20% of possible pairs] We cannot simply replace the old algorithms, so the 17th bit of the 'layout' variable is used to indicate whether we use the old or new method of computing the shift. (This is similar to the way the 16th bit indicates whether the "far" algorithm or the "offset" algorithm is being used.) This patch only handles the cases where the number of total raid disks is a multiple of 'far_copies'. A follow-on patch addresses the condition where this is not true. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
2013-02-21 13:28:10 +11:00
MD RAID10: Improve redundancy for 'far' and 'offset' algorithms (part 1) The MD RAID10 'far' and 'offset' algorithms make copies of entire stripe widths - copying them to a different location on the same devices after shifting the stripe. An example layout of each follows below: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 L G H I J K ... "offset" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 G H I J K L L G H I J K ... Redundancy for these algorithms is gained by shifting the copied stripes one device to the right. This patch proposes that array be divided into sets of adjacent devices and when the stripe copies are shifted, they wrap on set boundaries rather than the array size boundary. That is, for the purposes of shifting, the copies are confined to their sets within the array. The sets are 'near_copies * far_copies' in size. The above "far" algorithm example would change to: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... B A D C F E --> Copy of stripe0, shifted 1, 2-dev sets H G J I L K Dev sets are 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 ... This has the affect of improving the redundancy of the array. We can always sustain at least one failure, but sometimes more than one can be handled. In the first examples, the pairs of devices that CANNOT fail together are: (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) (4,5) (5,6) (1, 6) [40% of possible pairs] In the example where the copies are confined to sets, the pairs of devices that cannot fail together are: (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) [20% of possible pairs] We cannot simply replace the old algorithms, so the 17th bit of the 'layout' variable is used to indicate whether we use the old or new method of computing the shift. (This is similar to the way the 16th bit indicates whether the "far" algorithm or the "offset" algorithm is being used.) This patch only handles the cases where the number of total raid disks is a multiple of 'far_copies'. A follow-on patch addresses the condition where this is not true. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
2013-02-21 13:28:10 +11:00
MD RAID10: Improve redundancy for 'far' and 'offset' algorithms (part 1) The MD RAID10 'far' and 'offset' algorithms make copies of entire stripe widths - copying them to a different location on the same devices after shifting the stripe. An example layout of each follows below: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 L G H I J K ... "offset" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 G H I J K L L G H I J K ... Redundancy for these algorithms is gained by shifting the copied stripes one device to the right. This patch proposes that array be divided into sets of adjacent devices and when the stripe copies are shifted, they wrap on set boundaries rather than the array size boundary. That is, for the purposes of shifting, the copies are confined to their sets within the array. The sets are 'near_copies * far_copies' in size. The above "far" algorithm example would change to: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... B A D C F E --> Copy of stripe0, shifted 1, 2-dev sets H G J I L K Dev sets are 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 ... This has the affect of improving the redundancy of the array. We can always sustain at least one failure, but sometimes more than one can be handled. In the first examples, the pairs of devices that CANNOT fail together are: (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) (4,5) (5,6) (1, 6) [40% of possible pairs] In the example where the copies are confined to sets, the pairs of devices that cannot fail together are: (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) [20% of possible pairs] We cannot simply replace the old algorithms, so the 17th bit of the 'layout' variable is used to indicate whether we use the old or new method of computing the shift. (This is similar to the way the 16th bit indicates whether the "far" algorithm or the "offset" algorithm is being used.) This patch only handles the cases where the number of total raid disks is a multiple of 'far_copies'. A follow-on patch addresses the condition where this is not true. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
2013-02-21 13:28:10 +11:00
MD RAID10: Improve redundancy for 'far' and 'offset' algorithms (part 1) The MD RAID10 'far' and 'offset' algorithms make copies of entire stripe widths - copying them to a different location on the same devices after shifting the stripe. An example layout of each follows below: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 L G H I J K ... "offset" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 G H I J K L L G H I J K ... Redundancy for these algorithms is gained by shifting the copied stripes one device to the right. This patch proposes that array be divided into sets of adjacent devices and when the stripe copies are shifted, they wrap on set boundaries rather than the array size boundary. That is, for the purposes of shifting, the copies are confined to their sets within the array. The sets are 'near_copies * far_copies' in size. The above "far" algorithm example would change to: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... B A D C F E --> Copy of stripe0, shifted 1, 2-dev sets H G J I L K Dev sets are 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 ... This has the affect of improving the redundancy of the array. We can always sustain at least one failure, but sometimes more than one can be handled. In the first examples, the pairs of devices that CANNOT fail together are: (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) (4,5) (5,6) (1, 6) [40% of possible pairs] In the example where the copies are confined to sets, the pairs of devices that cannot fail together are: (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) [20% of possible pairs] We cannot simply replace the old algorithms, so the 17th bit of the 'layout' variable is used to indicate whether we use the old or new method of computing the shift. (This is similar to the way the 16th bit indicates whether the "far" algorithm or the "offset" algorithm is being used.) This patch only handles the cases where the number of total raid disks is a multiple of 'far_copies'. A follow-on patch addresses the condition where this is not true. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
2013-02-21 13:28:10 +11:00
MD RAID10: Improve redundancy for 'far' and 'offset' algorithms (part 1) The MD RAID10 'far' and 'offset' algorithms make copies of entire stripe widths - copying them to a different location on the same devices after shifting the stripe. An example layout of each follows below: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 L G H I J K ... "offset" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 G H I J K L L G H I J K ... Redundancy for these algorithms is gained by shifting the copied stripes one device to the right. This patch proposes that array be divided into sets of adjacent devices and when the stripe copies are shifted, they wrap on set boundaries rather than the array size boundary. That is, for the purposes of shifting, the copies are confined to their sets within the array. The sets are 'near_copies * far_copies' in size. The above "far" algorithm example would change to: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... B A D C F E --> Copy of stripe0, shifted 1, 2-dev sets H G J I L K Dev sets are 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 ... This has the affect of improving the redundancy of the array. We can always sustain at least one failure, but sometimes more than one can be handled. In the first examples, the pairs of devices that CANNOT fail together are: (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) (4,5) (5,6) (1, 6) [40% of possible pairs] In the example where the copies are confined to sets, the pairs of devices that cannot fail together are: (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) [20% of possible pairs] We cannot simply replace the old algorithms, so the 17th bit of the 'layout' variable is used to indicate whether we use the old or new method of computing the shift. (This is similar to the way the 16th bit indicates whether the "far" algorithm or the "offset" algorithm is being used.) This patch only handles the cases where the number of total raid disks is a multiple of 'far_copies'. A follow-on patch addresses the condition where this is not true. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
2013-02-21 13:28:10 +11:00
MD RAID10: Improve redundancy for 'far' and 'offset' algorithms (part 1) The MD RAID10 'far' and 'offset' algorithms make copies of entire stripe widths - copying them to a different location on the same devices after shifting the stripe. An example layout of each follows below: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 L G H I J K ... "offset" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 G H I J K L L G H I J K ... Redundancy for these algorithms is gained by shifting the copied stripes one device to the right. This patch proposes that array be divided into sets of adjacent devices and when the stripe copies are shifted, they wrap on set boundaries rather than the array size boundary. That is, for the purposes of shifting, the copies are confined to their sets within the array. The sets are 'near_copies * far_copies' in size. The above "far" algorithm example would change to: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... B A D C F E --> Copy of stripe0, shifted 1, 2-dev sets H G J I L K Dev sets are 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 ... This has the affect of improving the redundancy of the array. We can always sustain at least one failure, but sometimes more than one can be handled. In the first examples, the pairs of devices that CANNOT fail together are: (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) (4,5) (5,6) (1, 6) [40% of possible pairs] In the example where the copies are confined to sets, the pairs of devices that cannot fail together are: (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) [20% of possible pairs] We cannot simply replace the old algorithms, so the 17th bit of the 'layout' variable is used to indicate whether we use the old or new method of computing the shift. (This is similar to the way the 16th bit indicates whether the "far" algorithm or the "offset" algorithm is being used.) This patch only handles the cases where the number of total raid disks is a multiple of 'far_copies'. A follow-on patch addresses the condition where this is not true. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
2013-02-21 13:28:10 +11:00
MD RAID10: Improve redundancy for 'far' and 'offset' algorithms (part 1) The MD RAID10 'far' and 'offset' algorithms make copies of entire stripe widths - copying them to a different location on the same devices after shifting the stripe. An example layout of each follows below: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 L G H I J K ... "offset" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 G H I J K L L G H I J K ... Redundancy for these algorithms is gained by shifting the copied stripes one device to the right. This patch proposes that array be divided into sets of adjacent devices and when the stripe copies are shifted, they wrap on set boundaries rather than the array size boundary. That is, for the purposes of shifting, the copies are confined to their sets within the array. The sets are 'near_copies * far_copies' in size. The above "far" algorithm example would change to: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... B A D C F E --> Copy of stripe0, shifted 1, 2-dev sets H G J I L K Dev sets are 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 ... This has the affect of improving the redundancy of the array. We can always sustain at least one failure, but sometimes more than one can be handled. In the first examples, the pairs of devices that CANNOT fail together are: (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) (4,5) (5,6) (1, 6) [40% of possible pairs] In the example where the copies are confined to sets, the pairs of devices that cannot fail together are: (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) [20% of possible pairs] We cannot simply replace the old algorithms, so the 17th bit of the 'layout' variable is used to indicate whether we use the old or new method of computing the shift. (This is similar to the way the 16th bit indicates whether the "far" algorithm or the "offset" algorithm is being used.) This patch only handles the cases where the number of total raid disks is a multiple of 'far_copies'. A follow-on patch addresses the condition where this is not true. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
2013-02-21 13:28:10 +11:00
MD RAID10: Improve redundancy for 'far' and 'offset' algorithms (part 1) The MD RAID10 'far' and 'offset' algorithms make copies of entire stripe widths - copying them to a different location on the same devices after shifting the stripe. An example layout of each follows below: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 L G H I J K ... "offset" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 G H I J K L L G H I J K ... Redundancy for these algorithms is gained by shifting the copied stripes one device to the right. This patch proposes that array be divided into sets of adjacent devices and when the stripe copies are shifted, they wrap on set boundaries rather than the array size boundary. That is, for the purposes of shifting, the copies are confined to their sets within the array. The sets are 'near_copies * far_copies' in size. The above "far" algorithm example would change to: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... B A D C F E --> Copy of stripe0, shifted 1, 2-dev sets H G J I L K Dev sets are 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 ... This has the affect of improving the redundancy of the array. We can always sustain at least one failure, but sometimes more than one can be handled. In the first examples, the pairs of devices that CANNOT fail together are: (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) (4,5) (5,6) (1, 6) [40% of possible pairs] In the example where the copies are confined to sets, the pairs of devices that cannot fail together are: (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) [20% of possible pairs] We cannot simply replace the old algorithms, so the 17th bit of the 'layout' variable is used to indicate whether we use the old or new method of computing the shift. (This is similar to the way the 16th bit indicates whether the "far" algorithm or the "offset" algorithm is being used.) This patch only handles the cases where the number of total raid disks is a multiple of 'far_copies'. A follow-on patch addresses the condition where this is not true. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
2013-02-21 13:28:10 +11:00
MD RAID10: Improve redundancy for 'far' and 'offset' algorithms (part 1) The MD RAID10 'far' and 'offset' algorithms make copies of entire stripe widths - copying them to a different location on the same devices after shifting the stripe. An example layout of each follows below: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 L G H I J K ... "offset" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 G H I J K L L G H I J K ... Redundancy for these algorithms is gained by shifting the copied stripes one device to the right. This patch proposes that array be divided into sets of adjacent devices and when the stripe copies are shifted, they wrap on set boundaries rather than the array size boundary. That is, for the purposes of shifting, the copies are confined to their sets within the array. The sets are 'near_copies * far_copies' in size. The above "far" algorithm example would change to: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... B A D C F E --> Copy of stripe0, shifted 1, 2-dev sets H G J I L K Dev sets are 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 ... This has the affect of improving the redundancy of the array. We can always sustain at least one failure, but sometimes more than one can be handled. In the first examples, the pairs of devices that CANNOT fail together are: (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) (4,5) (5,6) (1, 6) [40% of possible pairs] In the example where the copies are confined to sets, the pairs of devices that cannot fail together are: (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) [20% of possible pairs] We cannot simply replace the old algorithms, so the 17th bit of the 'layout' variable is used to indicate whether we use the old or new method of computing the shift. (This is similar to the way the 16th bit indicates whether the "far" algorithm or the "offset" algorithm is being used.) This patch only handles the cases where the number of total raid disks is a multiple of 'far_copies'. A follow-on patch addresses the condition where this is not true. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
2013-02-21 13:28:10 +11:00
Merge branch 'for-3.2/core' of git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block * 'for-3.2/core' of git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block: (29 commits) block: don't call blk_drain_queue() if elevator is not up blk-throttle: use queue_is_locked() instead of lockdep_is_held() blk-throttle: Take blkcg->lock while traversing blkcg->policy_list blk-throttle: Free up policy node associated with deleted rule block: warn if tag is greater than real_max_depth. block: make gendisk hold a reference to its queue blk-flush: move the queue kick into blk-flush: fix invalid BUG_ON in blk_insert_flush block: Remove the control of complete cpu from bio. block: fix a typo in the blk-cgroup.h file block: initialize the bounce pool if high memory may be added later block: fix request_queue lifetime handling by making blk_queue_cleanup() properly shutdown block: drop @tsk from attempt_plug_merge() and explain sync rules block: make get_request[_wait]() fail if queue is dead block: reorganize throtl_get_tg() and blk_throtl_bio() block: reorganize queue draining block: drop unnecessary blk_get/put_queue() in scsi_cmd_ioctl() and blk_get_tg() block: pass around REQ_* flags instead of broken down booleans during request alloc/free block: move blk_throtl prototypes to block/blk.h block: fix genhd refcounting in blkio_policy_parse_and_set() ... Fix up trivial conflicts due to "mddev_t" -> "struct mddev" conversion and making the request functions be of type "void" instead of "int" in - drivers/md/{faulty.c,linear.c,md.c,md.h,multipath.c,raid0.c,raid1.c,raid10.c,raid5.c} - drivers/staging/zram/zram_drv.c
2011-11-04 17:06:58 -07:00
2010-09-03 11:56:18 +02:00
2010-09-03 11:56:18 +02:00
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: make it easier to wait for bad blocks to be acknowledged. It is only safe to choose not to write to a bad block if that bad block is safely recorded in metadata - i.e. if it has been 'acknowledged'. If it hasn't we need to wait for the acknowledgement. We support that using rdev->blocked wait and md_wait_for_blocked_rdev by introducing a new device flag 'BlockedBadBlock'. This flag is only advisory. It is cleared whenever we acknowledge a bad block, so that a waiter can re-check the particular bad blocks that it is interested it. It should be set by a caller when they find they need to wait. This (set after test) is inherently racy, but as md_wait_for_blocked_rdev already has a timeout, losing the race will have minimal impact. When we clear "Blocked" was also clear "BlockedBadBlocks" incase it was set incorrectly (see above race). We also modify the way we manage 'Blocked' to fit better with the new handling of 'BlockedBadBlocks' and to make it consistent between externally managed and internally managed metadata. This requires that each raidXd loop checks if the metadata needs to be written and triggers a write (md_check_recovery) if needed. Otherwise a queued write request might cause raidXd to wait for the metadata to write, and only that thread can write it. Before writing metadata, we set FaultRecorded for all devices that are Faulty, then after writing the metadata we clear Blocked for any device for which the Fault was certainly Recorded. The 'faulty' device flag now appears in sysfs if the device is faulty *or* it has unacknowledged bad blocks. So user-space which does not understand bad blocks can continue to function correctly. User space which does, should not assume a device is faulty until it sees the 'faulty' flag, and then sees the list of unacknowledged bad blocks is empty. Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
2011-07-28 11:31:48 +10:00
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: make it easier to wait for bad blocks to be acknowledged. It is only safe to choose not to write to a bad block if that bad block is safely recorded in metadata - i.e. if it has been 'acknowledged'. If it hasn't we need to wait for the acknowledgement. We support that using rdev->blocked wait and md_wait_for_blocked_rdev by introducing a new device flag 'BlockedBadBlock'. This flag is only advisory. It is cleared whenever we acknowledge a bad block, so that a waiter can re-check the particular bad blocks that it is interested it. It should be set by a caller when they find they need to wait. This (set after test) is inherently racy, but as md_wait_for_blocked_rdev already has a timeout, losing the race will have minimal impact. When we clear "Blocked" was also clear "BlockedBadBlocks" incase it was set incorrectly (see above race). We also modify the way we manage 'Blocked' to fit better with the new handling of 'BlockedBadBlocks' and to make it consistent between externally managed and internally managed metadata. This requires that each raidXd loop checks if the metadata needs to be written and triggers a write (md_check_recovery) if needed. Otherwise a queued write request might cause raidXd to wait for the metadata to write, and only that thread can write it. Before writing metadata, we set FaultRecorded for all devices that are Faulty, then after writing the metadata we clear Blocked for any device for which the Fault was certainly Recorded. The 'faulty' device flag now appears in sysfs if the device is faulty *or* it has unacknowledged bad blocks. So user-space which does not understand bad blocks can continue to function correctly. User space which does, should not assume a device is faulty until it sees the 'faulty' flag, and then sees the list of unacknowledged bad blocks is empty. Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
2011-07-28 11:31:48 +10:00
MD RAID10: Improve redundancy for 'far' and 'offset' algorithms (part 1) The MD RAID10 'far' and 'offset' algorithms make copies of entire stripe widths - copying them to a different location on the same devices after shifting the stripe. An example layout of each follows below: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 L G H I J K ... "offset" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 G H I J K L L G H I J K ... Redundancy for these algorithms is gained by shifting the copied stripes one device to the right. This patch proposes that array be divided into sets of adjacent devices and when the stripe copies are shifted, they wrap on set boundaries rather than the array size boundary. That is, for the purposes of shifting, the copies are confined to their sets within the array. The sets are 'near_copies * far_copies' in size. The above "far" algorithm example would change to: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... B A D C F E --> Copy of stripe0, shifted 1, 2-dev sets H G J I L K Dev sets are 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 ... This has the affect of improving the redundancy of the array. We can always sustain at least one failure, but sometimes more than one can be handled. In the first examples, the pairs of devices that CANNOT fail together are: (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) (4,5) (5,6) (1, 6) [40% of possible pairs] In the example where the copies are confined to sets, the pairs of devices that cannot fail together are: (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) [20% of possible pairs] We cannot simply replace the old algorithms, so the 17th bit of the 'layout' variable is used to indicate whether we use the old or new method of computing the shift. (This is similar to the way the 16th bit indicates whether the "far" algorithm or the "offset" algorithm is being used.) This patch only handles the cases where the number of total raid disks is a multiple of 'far_copies'. A follow-on patch addresses the condition where this is not true. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
2013-02-21 13:28:10 +11:00
MD RAID10: Improve redundancy for 'far' and 'offset' algorithms (part 1) The MD RAID10 'far' and 'offset' algorithms make copies of entire stripe widths - copying them to a different location on the same devices after shifting the stripe. An example layout of each follows below: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 L G H I J K ... "offset" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F F A B C D E --> Copy of stripe0, but shifted by 1 G H I J K L L G H I J K ... Redundancy for these algorithms is gained by shifting the copied stripes one device to the right. This patch proposes that array be divided into sets of adjacent devices and when the stripe copies are shifted, they wrap on set boundaries rather than the array size boundary. That is, for the purposes of shifting, the copies are confined to their sets within the array. The sets are 'near_copies * far_copies' in size. The above "far" algorithm example would change to: "far" algorithm dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== A B C D E F G H I J K L ... B A D C F E --> Copy of stripe0, shifted 1, 2-dev sets H G J I L K Dev sets are 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 ... This has the affect of improving the redundancy of the array. We can always sustain at least one failure, but sometimes more than one can be handled. In the first examples, the pairs of devices that CANNOT fail together are: (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) (4,5) (5,6) (1, 6) [40% of possible pairs] In the example where the copies are confined to sets, the pairs of devices that cannot fail together are: (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) [20% of possible pairs] We cannot simply replace the old algorithms, so the 17th bit of the 'layout' variable is used to indicate whether we use the old or new method of computing the shift. (This is similar to the way the 16th bit indicates whether the "far" algorithm or the "offset" algorithm is being used.) This patch only handles the cases where the number of total raid disks is a multiple of 'far_copies'. A follow-on patch addresses the condition where this is not true. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
2013-02-21 13:28:10 +11:00