From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wols Lists Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] md/raid0: Do not bypass blocking queue entered for raid0 bios Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 17:52:59 +0100 Message-ID: <5CD3096B.4030302@youngman.org.uk> References: <20190430223722.20845-1-gpiccoli@canonical.com> <20190430223722.20845-2-gpiccoli@canonical.com> <5CD2A172.4010302@youngman.org.uk> <0ad36b2f-ec36-6930-b587-da0526613567@gpiccoli.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <0ad36b2f-ec36-6930-b587-da0526613567@gpiccoli.net> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" , Song Liu Cc: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid , dm-devel@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, Gavin Guo , Jay Vosburgh , kernel@gpiccoli.net, Ming Lei , Tetsuo Handa , stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 08/05/19 15:52, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote: > Hi, I understand your concern. But all other raid levels contains > failure-event mechanisms. For example, in all my tests with raid5 or > raid1, it first complained the device was removed, then it failed in > super_written() when no other available device was present. > On the other hand, raid0 does "blind-writes": it just selects the device > in which that bio should be written (given the stripe math) and change > the bio's device, sending it back via generic_make_request(). It's > dummy, but not in a bad way, but rather for performance reasons. It has > no "intelligence" for failures, as all other raid levels. > > That said, we could fix md.c for all raid levels, but I personally think > it's a bazooka shot, only raid0 shows consistently this issue. > The academic in me says we should push that error handling into generic_make_request() or some raid function in md.c that deals with those problems. Sounds like there's a fair bit of duplicate functionality that could be re-factored out. >> >> Academic purity versus engineering practicality :-) > > Heheh you have good points here! Thanks for the input =) > Cheers, > Doesn't help when there's not an architect to design an overall "grand scheme", but my usual way of working is to design top down academically, and then ask myself "what do I need" before implementing bottom-up. Hopefully with a load of documentation saying "I haven't done this because I don't need it, but this is where it goes". Cheers, Wol