All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
To: Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>,
	Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>,
	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>,
	Anthony Youngman <antlists@youngman.org.uk>,
	Phil Turmel <philip@turmel.org>, "Ravi (Tom) Hale" <ravi@hale.ee>,
	Linux-RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: A sector-of-mismatch warning patch (was Re: Fault tolerance with badblocks)
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 09:55:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170519165517.257ny67pxkcbtpkq@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8737c13zn8.fsf@esperi.org.uk>

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:32:43AM +0100, Nix wrote:
> On 19 May 2017, NeilBrown said:
> 
> > On Tue, May 16 2017, Nix wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 May 2017, NeilBrown spake thusly:
> >>
> >>> Actually, I have another caveat.  I don't think we want these messages
> >>> during initial resync, or any resync.  Only during a 'check' or
> >>> 'repair'.
> >>> So add a check for MD_RECOVERY_REQUESTED or maybe for
> >>>   sh->sectors >= conf->mddev->recovery_cp
> >>
> >> I completely agree, but it's already inside MD_RECOVERY_CHECK:
> >>
> >> if (test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_CHECK, &conf->mddev->recovery)) {
> >>         /* don't try to repair!! */
> >>         set_bit(STRIPE_INSYNC, &sh->state);
> >>         pr_warn_ratelimited("%s: mismatch sector in range "
> >>                             "%llu-%llu\n", mdname(conf->mddev),
> >>                             (unsigned long long) sh->sector,
> >>                             (unsigned long long) sh->sector +
> >>                             STRIPE_SECTORS);
> >> } else {
> >>
> >> Doesn't that already mean that someone has explicitly triggered a check
> >> action?
> >
> > Uhmm... yeah.  I lose track of which flags me what exactly.
> > You log messages aren't generated when 'repair' is used, only when
> > 'check' is.
> > I can see why you might have chosen that, but I wonder if it is best.
> 
> I'm not sure what the point is of being told when repair is used: hey,
> there was an inconsistency here but there isn't any more! I suppose you
> could still use it to see if the repair did the right thing. My problem
> on that front was that I'm not sure what flag should be used to catch
> repair but not resync etc: everywhere else in the code, repair is in an
> unadorned else branch... is it the *lack* of MD_RECOVERY_CHECK and the
> presence of, uh, something else?
MD_RECOVERY_SYNC && MD_RECOVERY_REQUESTED && MD_RECOVERY_CHECK == check
MD_RECOVERY_SYNC && MD_RECOVERY_REQUESTED == repair
MD_RECOVERY_SYNC && !MD_RECOVERY_REQUESTED == resync

Don't see the poin to print the info for 'repair'. 'repair' already changes the
data, how could we use the info?

Thanks,
Shaohua

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-19 16:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-04 10:04 Fault tolerance in RAID0 with badblocks Ravi (Tom) Hale
2017-05-04 13:44 ` Wols Lists
2017-05-05  4:03   ` Fault tolerance " Ravi (Tom) Hale
2017-05-05 19:20     ` Anthony Youngman
2017-05-06 11:21       ` Ravi (Tom) Hale
2017-05-06 13:00         ` Wols Lists
2017-05-08 14:50           ` Nix
2017-05-08 18:00             ` Anthony Youngman
2017-05-09 10:11               ` David Brown
2017-05-09 10:18               ` Nix
2017-05-08 19:02             ` Phil Turmel
2017-05-08 19:52               ` Nix
2017-05-08 20:27                 ` Anthony Youngman
2017-05-09  9:53                   ` Nix
2017-05-09 11:09                     ` David Brown
2017-05-09 11:27                       ` Nix
2017-05-09 11:58                         ` David Brown
2017-05-09 17:25                           ` Chris Murphy
2017-05-09 19:44                             ` Wols Lists
2017-05-10  3:53                               ` Chris Murphy
2017-05-10  4:49                                 ` Wols Lists
2017-05-10 17:18                                   ` Chris Murphy
2017-05-16  3:20                                   ` NeilBrown
2017-05-10  5:00                                 ` Dave Stevens
2017-05-10 16:44                                 ` Edward Kuns
2017-05-10 18:09                                   ` Chris Murphy
2017-05-09 20:18                             ` Nix
2017-05-09 20:52                               ` Wols Lists
2017-05-10  8:41                               ` David Brown
2017-05-09 21:06                             ` A sector-of-mismatch warning patch (was Re: Fault tolerance with badblocks) Nix
2017-05-12 11:14                               ` Nix
2017-05-16  3:27                               ` NeilBrown
2017-05-16  9:13                                 ` Nix
2017-05-16 21:11                                 ` NeilBrown
2017-05-16 21:46                                   ` Nix
2017-05-18  0:07                                     ` Shaohua Li
2017-05-19  4:53                                       ` NeilBrown
2017-05-19 10:31                                         ` Nix
2017-05-19 16:48                                           ` Shaohua Li
2017-06-02 12:28                                             ` Nix
2017-05-19  4:49                                     ` NeilBrown
2017-05-19 10:32                                       ` Nix
2017-05-19 16:55                                         ` Shaohua Li [this message]
2017-05-21 22:00                                           ` NeilBrown
2017-05-09 19:16                         ` Fault tolerance with badblocks Phil Turmel
2017-05-09 20:01                           ` Nix
2017-05-09 20:57                             ` Wols Lists
2017-05-09 21:22                               ` Nix
2017-05-09 21:23                             ` Phil Turmel
2017-05-09 21:32                     ` NeilBrown
2017-05-10 19:03                       ` Nix
2017-05-09 16:05                   ` Chris Murphy
2017-05-09 17:49                     ` Wols Lists
2017-05-10  3:06                       ` Chris Murphy
2017-05-08 20:56                 ` Phil Turmel
2017-05-09 10:28                   ` Nix
2017-05-09 10:50                     ` Reindl Harald
2017-05-09 11:15                       ` Nix
2017-05-09 11:48                         ` Reindl Harald
2017-05-09 16:11                           ` Nix
2017-05-09 16:46                             ` Reindl Harald
2017-05-09  7:37             ` David Brown
2017-05-09  9:58               ` Nix
2017-05-09 10:28                 ` Brad Campbell
2017-05-09 10:40                   ` Nix
2017-05-09 12:15                     ` Tim Small
2017-05-09 15:30                       ` Nix
2017-05-05 20:23     ` Peter Grandi
2017-05-05 22:14       ` Nix

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170519165517.257ny67pxkcbtpkq@kernel.org \
    --to=shli@kernel.org \
    --cc=antlists@youngman.org.uk \
    --cc=david.brown@hesbynett.no \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lists@colorremedies.com \
    --cc=neilb@suse.com \
    --cc=nix@esperi.org.uk \
    --cc=philip@turmel.org \
    --cc=ravi@hale.ee \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.