From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29ECC433E0 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:17:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1C96198E for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:17:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231555AbhCVRQz (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:16:55 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:42758 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232085AbhCVRQp (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:16:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1616433405; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DnYVFwy+qw+4cnd/HmzGnJ8ZX+ZaeIrCjFq8Pozl1A4=; b=a3ODGdS4jVnSPLcAVNtkyMcpcReEI8adKsT+KcAGf+IUEhp7jLt3P7Ws8Hb/jRaLx03Rw1 1aoySADh1g8LOm0WyJUfMB2m7BDr6ofRW8+k+ETdeni0HDCndmM8octZ+gHG/8k7W+U0ZP tPvZwY99+NVVI+qx54YrX9GNzXTbPDU= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-314-sS4hGNMtMsS6jDGXudlRVw-1; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:16:42 -0400 X-MC-Unique: sS4hGNMtMsS6jDGXudlRVw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D186180FCDE; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.20]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2331F1042B4C; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zmail24.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (zmail24.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.83.30]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC251809C81; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:16:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Nigel Croxon To: Oleksandr Shchirskyi Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Mariusz Tkaczyk , Jes Sorensen Message-ID: <207580597.39647667.1616433400775.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <08b71ea7-bdd3-722d-d18f-aa065b8756c0@linux.intel.com> References: <764426808.38181143.1615910368475.JavaMail.zimbraredhat!com> <08b71ea7-bdd3-722d-d18f-aa065b8756c0@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mdadm: fix reshape from RAID5 to RAID6 with backup file MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.10.114.97, 10.4.195.29] Thread-Topic: mdadm: fix reshape from RAID5 to RAID6 with backup file Thread-Index: AnTuLLiwTV0uaQMPZU0dLaGXkh+1Nw== X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oleksandr Shchirskyi" To: "Nigel Croxon" , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Cc: "Mariusz Tkaczyk" , "Jes Sorensen" Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 12:21:11 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH] mdadm: fix reshape from RAID5 to RAID6 with backup file Hello Nigel, I have collected more info regarding this issue. I can confirm what Mariusz said, it's a regression caused by patch 4ae96c802203 The reason for failure during the reshape, is that in this patch sync_max value is set to max, but the function wait_for_reshape_imsm, used in some reshape scenarios, relies on this parameter, and doesn't expect, that value can be max. This leads to reshaping fail. Here's an example of a debug log from this method, when the issue is hit: mdadm: wait_for_reshape_imsm: wrong next position to set 4096 (2048) mdadm: imsm_manage_reshape: wait_for_reshape_imsm returned error! With this patch reverted, the issue is not observed. See my logs below: # mdadm -CR imsm0 -e imsm -n4 /dev/nvme[0-3]n1 && mdadm -CR volume -l0 --chunk 64 --size=10G --raid-devices=1 /dev/nvme0n1 --force # mdadm -D /dev/md/volume /dev/md/volume: Container : /dev/md/imsm0, member 0 Raid Level : raid0 Array Size : 10485760 (10.00 GiB 10.74 GB) Raid Devices : 1 Total Devices : 1 State : clean ... # mdadm -G /dev/md/imsm0 -n2 # mdadm -D /dev/md/volume /dev/md/volume: Container : /dev/md/imsm0, member 0 Raid Level : raid4 Array Size : 10485760 (10.00 GiB 10.74 GB) Used Dev Size : 10485760 (10.00 GiB 10.74 GB) Raid Devices : 3 Total Devices : 2 State : clean, degraded ... # git revert 4ae96c802203ec3cfbb089240c56d61f7f4661b3 Auto-merging Grow.c [master 1166854] Revert "mdadm: fix reshape from RAID5 to RAID6 with backup file" 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) # mdadm -Ss; wipefs -a /dev/nvme[0-3]n1 # make clean; make; make install-systemd; make install # mdadm -CR imsm0 -e imsm -n4 /dev/nvme[0-3]n1 && mdadm -CR volume -l0 --chunk 64 --size=10G --raid-devices=1 /dev/nvme0n1 --force # mdadm -G /dev/md/imsm0 -n2 # mdadm -D /dev/md/volume /dev/md/volume: Container : /dev/md/imsm0, member 0 Raid Level : raid0 Array Size : 20971520 (20.00 GiB 21.47 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 State : clean ... # On 3/16/2021 4:59 PM, Nigel Croxon wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mariusz Tkaczyk" > To: "Jes Sorensen" , "Nigel Croxon" .com>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, xni@redhat.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 10:54:22 AM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mdadm: fix reshape from RAID5 to RAID6 with backup fil= > e > > Hello Nigel, > > Blame told us, that yours patch introduce regression in following > scenario: > > #mdadm -CR imsm0 -e imsm -n4 /dev/nvme[0125]n1 > #mdadm -CR volume -l0 --chunk 64 --raid-devices=3D1 /dev/nvme0n1 --force > #mdadm -G /dev/md/imsm0 -n2 > > At the end of reshape, level doesn't back to RAID0. > Could you look into it? > Let me know, if you need support. > > Thanks, > Mariusz > > I=E2=80=99m trying your situation without my patch (its reverted) and I=E2= > =80=99m not seeing success. > See the dmesg log. > > > [root@fedora33 mdadmupstream]# mdadm -CR volume -l0 --chunk 64 --raid-devic= > es=3D1 /dev/nvme0n1 --force > mdadm: /dev/nvme0n1 appears to be part of a raid array: > level=3Dcontainer devices=3D0 ctime=3DWed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 > mdadm: Creating array inside imsm container md127 > mdadm: array /dev/md/volume started. > > [root@fedora33 mdadmupstream]# cat /proc/mdstat=20 > Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid0]=20 > md126 : active raid0 nvme0n1[0] > 500102144 blocks super external:/md127/0 64k chunks > > md127 : inactive nvme3n1[3](S) nvme2n1[2](S) nvme1n1[1](S) nvme0n1[0](S) > 4420 blocks super external:imsm > > unused devices: > [root@fedora33 mdadmupstream]# mdadm -G /dev/md/imsm0 -n2 > [root@fedora33 mdadmupstream]# cat /proc/mdstat=20 > Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid0]=20 > md126 : active raid4 nvme3n1[2] nvme0n1[0] > 500102144 blocks super external:-md127/0 level 4, 64k chunk, algorithm= > 5 [2/1] [U_] > > md127 : inactive nvme3n1[3](S) nvme2n1[2](S) nvme1n1[1](S) nvme0n1[0](S) > 4420 blocks super external:imsm > > unused devices: > > > dmesg says: > [Mar16 11:46] md/raid:md126: device nvme0n1 operational as raid disk 0 > [ +0.011147] md/raid:md126: raid level 4 active with 1 out of 2 devices, a= > lgorithm 5 > [ +0.044605] md/raid0:md126: raid5 must have missing parity disk! > [ +0.000002] md: md126: raid0 would not accept array > > -Nigel > -- Regards, Oleksandr Shchirskyi I still see this in dmesg, when testing your commands.. (with my patch reverted). [ +15.062999] nvme3n1: [ +0.027625] nvme0n1: [ +0.014124] md126: detected capacity change from 0 to 204800 [ +0.011697] nvme0n1: [ +0.016679] nvme0n1: [ +0.007536] nvme3n1: [ +0.022917] md126: [ +0.069564] nvme0n1: [ +10.069299] md/raid:md126: device nvme0n1 operational as raid disk 0 [ +0.010772] md/raid:md126: raid level 4 active with 1 out of 2 devices, algorithm 5 [ +0.041509] md/raid0:md126: raid5 must have missing parity disk! [ +0.000003] md: md126: raid0 would not accept array