From: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Cc: xni@redhat.com, song@kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yukuai3@huawei.com,
yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 3/8] raid5: fix missing io accounting in raid5_align_endio()
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 11:57:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6f05e7b4-461c-68db-20c5-e3bfd52cc7f6@molgen.mpg.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230619204826.755559-4-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Dear Yu,
Thank you for your patch.
Am 19.06.23 um 22:48 schrieb Yu Kuai:
> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
>
> Io will only be accounted as done from raid5_align_endio() if the io
> succeed, and io inflight counter will be leaked if such io failed.
succeed*s* or succeed*ed*?
> Fix this problem by switching to use md_account_bio() for io accounting.
How can this be tested?
> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
> ---
> drivers/md/raid5.c | 29 ++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> index cef0b400b2ee..4cdb35e54251 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> @@ -5468,26 +5468,17 @@ static struct bio *remove_bio_from_retry(struct r5conf *conf,
> */
> static void raid5_align_endio(struct bio *bi)
> {
> - struct md_io_clone *md_io_clone = bi->bi_private;
> - struct bio *raid_bi = md_io_clone->orig_bio;
> - struct mddev *mddev;
> - struct r5conf *conf;
> - struct md_rdev *rdev;
> + struct bio *raid_bi = bi->bi_private;
> + struct md_rdev *rdev = (void *)raid_bi->bi_next;
> + struct mddev *mddev = rdev->mddev;
> + struct r5conf *conf = mddev->private;
> blk_status_t error = bi->bi_status;
> - unsigned long start_time = md_io_clone->start_time;
>
> bio_put(bi);
> -
> - rdev = (void*)raid_bi->bi_next;
> raid_bi->bi_next = NULL;
> - mddev = rdev->mddev;
> - conf = mddev->private;
> -
This looks like unnecessary refactoring. No idea what the preferred
style for the subsystem is though. If it is wanted, maybe make it a
separate commit?
> rdev_dec_pending(rdev, conf->mddev);
>
> if (!error) {
> - if (blk_queue_io_stat(raid_bi->bi_bdev->bd_disk->queue))
> - bio_end_io_acct(raid_bi, start_time);
> bio_endio(raid_bi);
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&conf->active_aligned_reads))
> wake_up(&conf->wait_for_quiescent);
> @@ -5506,7 +5497,6 @@ static int raid5_read_one_chunk(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *raid_bio)
> struct md_rdev *rdev;
> sector_t sector, end_sector, first_bad;
> int bad_sectors, dd_idx;
> - struct md_io_clone *md_io_clone;
> bool did_inc;
>
> if (!in_chunk_boundary(mddev, raid_bio)) {
> @@ -5543,16 +5533,13 @@ static int raid5_read_one_chunk(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *raid_bio)
> return 0;
> }
>
> - align_bio = bio_alloc_clone(rdev->bdev, raid_bio, GFP_NOIO,
> - &mddev->io_clone_set);
> - md_io_clone = container_of(align_bio, struct md_io_clone, bio_clone);
> + md_account_bio(mddev, &raid_bio);
> raid_bio->bi_next = (void *)rdev;
> - if (blk_queue_io_stat(raid_bio->bi_bdev->bd_disk->queue))
> - md_io_clone->start_time = bio_start_io_acct(raid_bio);
> - md_io_clone->orig_bio = raid_bio;
>
> + align_bio = bio_alloc_clone(rdev->bdev, raid_bio, GFP_NOIO,
> + &mddev->bio_set);
> align_bio->bi_end_io = raid5_align_endio;
> - align_bio->bi_private = md_io_clone;
> + align_bio->bi_private = raid_bio;
> align_bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = sector;
>
> /* No reshape active, so we can trust rdev->data_offset */
Kind regards,
Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-20 10:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-19 20:48 [PATCH -next 0/8] md: fix and refactor io accounting and 'active_io' Yu Kuai
2023-06-19 20:48 ` [PATCH -next 1/8] md: move initialization and destruction of 'io_acct_set' to md.c Yu Kuai
2023-06-20 8:35 ` Xiao Ni
2023-06-21 2:35 ` Yu Kuai
2023-06-19 20:48 ` [PATCH -next 2/8] md: also clone new io if io accounting is disabled Yu Kuai
2023-06-20 8:48 ` Xiao Ni
2023-06-19 20:48 ` [PATCH -next 3/8] raid5: fix missing io accounting in raid5_align_endio() Yu Kuai
2023-06-20 8:52 ` Xiao Ni
2023-06-20 9:57 ` Paul Menzel [this message]
2023-06-21 3:22 ` Yu Kuai
2023-06-19 20:48 ` [PATCH -next 4/8] md/raid1: switch to use md_account_bio() for io accounting Yu Kuai
2023-06-20 9:07 ` Xiao Ni
2023-06-20 13:38 ` Yu Kuai
2023-06-19 20:48 ` [PATCH -next 5/8] md/raid10: " Yu Kuai
2023-06-20 9:10 ` Xiao Ni
2023-06-19 20:48 ` [PATCH -next 6/8] md/md-multipath: enable " Yu Kuai
2023-06-20 9:11 ` Xiao Ni
2023-06-19 20:48 ` [PATCH -next 7/8] md/md-linear: " Yu Kuai
2023-06-20 9:12 ` Xiao Ni
2023-06-19 20:48 ` [PATCH -next 8/8] md/md-faulty: " Yu Kuai
2023-06-20 9:13 ` Xiao Ni
2023-06-20 17:45 ` [PATCH -next 0/8] md: fix and refactor io accounting and 'active_io' Song Liu
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=6f05e7b4-461c-68db-20c5-e3bfd52cc7f6@molgen.mpg.de \
--to=pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=xni@redhat.com \
--cc=yangerkun@huawei.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yukuai1@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).