When a write error is detected, don't mark the device as failed
immediately but rather record the fact for handle_stripe to deal with.
Handle_stripe then attempts to record a bad block. Only if that fails
does the device get marked as faulty.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
If we get an uncorrectable read error - record a bad block rather than
failing the device.
And if these errors (which may be due to known bad blocks) cause
recovery to be impossible, record a bad block on the recovering
devices, or abort the recovery.
As we might abort a recovery without failing a device we need to teach
RAID5 about recovery_disabled handling.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
There are two times that we might read in raid5:
1/ when a read request fits within a chunk on a single
working device.
In this case, if there is any bad block in the range of
the read, we simply fail the cache-bypass read and
perform the read though the stripe cache.
2/ when reading into the stripe cache. In this case we
mark as failed any device which has a bad block in that
strip (1 page wide).
Note that we will both avoid reading and avoid writing.
This is correct (as we will never read from the block, there
is no point writing), but not optimal (as writing could 'fix'
the error) - that will be addressed later.
If we have not seen any write errors on the device yet, we treat a bad
block like a recent read error. This will encourage an attempt to fix
the read error which will either generate a write error, or will
ensure good data is stored there. We don't yet forget the bad block
in that case. That comes later.
Now that we honour bad blocks when reading we can allow devices with
bad blocks into the array.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
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>
As no personality understand bad block lists yet, we must
reject any device that is known to contain bad blocks.
As the personalities get taught, these tests can be removed.
This only applies to raid1/raid5/raid10.
For linear/raid0/multipath/faulty the whole concept of bad blocks
doesn't mean anything so there is no point adding the checks.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
While preparing to write a stripe we keep the parity block or blocks
locked (R5_LOCKED) - towards the end of schedule_reconstruction.
If the array is discovered to have failed before this write completes
we can leave those blocks LOCKED, and init_stripe will notice that a
free stripe still has a locked block and will complain.
So clear the R5_LOCKED flag in handle_failed_stripe, and demote the
'BUG' to a 'WARN_ON'.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Read errors are considered to corrected if write-back and re-read
cycle is finished without further problems. Thus moving the rdev->
corrected_errors counting after the re-reading looks more reasonable
IMHO.
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
There are places where sysfs links to rdev are handled
in a same way. Add the helper functions to consolidate
them.
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
handle_stripe5() and handle_stripe6() are now virtually identical.
So discard one and rename the other to 'analyse_stripe()'.
It always returns 0, so change it to 'void' and remove the 'done'
variable in handle_stripe().
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
The RAID6 version of this code is usable for RAID5 providing:
- we test "conf->max_degraded" rather than "2" as appropriate
- we make sure s->failed_num[1] is meaningful (and not '-1')
when s->failed > 1
The 'return 1' must become 'goto finish' in the new location.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
Apart from 'prexor' which can only be set for RAID5, and
'qd_idx' which can only be meaningful for RAID6, these two
chunks of code are nearly the same.
So combine them into one adding a test to call either
handle_parity_checks5 or handle_parity_checks6 as appropriate.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
RAID6 is only allowed to choose 'reconstruct-write' while RAID5 is
also allow 'read-modify-write'
Apart from this difference, handle_stripe_dirtying[56] are nearly
identical. So resolve these differences and create just one function.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
Provided that ->failed_num[1] is not a valid device number (which is
easily achieved) fetch_block6 provides all the functionality of
fetch_block5.
So remove the latter and rename the former to simply "fetch_block".
Then handle_stripe_fill5 and handle_stripe_fill6 become the same and
can similarly be united.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
Next patch will unite fetch_block5 and fetch_block6.
First I want to make the differences a little more clear.
For RAID6 if we are writing at all and there is a failed device, then
we need to load or compute every block so we can do a
reconstruct-write.
This case isn't needed for RAID5 - we will do a read-modify-write in
that case.
So make that test a separate test in fetch_block6 rather than merged
with two other tests.
Make a similar change in fetch_block5 so the one bit that is not
needed for RAID6 is clearly separate.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
The difference between the RAID5 and RAID6 code here is easily
resolved using conf->max_degraded.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
Prior to commit ab69ae12ce the code in handle_stripe5 and
handle_stripe6 to "Finish reconstruct operations initiated by the
expansion process" was identical.
That commit added an identical stanza of code to each function, but in
different places. That was careless.
The raid5 code was correct, so move that out into handle_stripe and
remove raid6 version.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
This arg is only used to differentiate between RAID5 and RAID6 but
that is not needed. For RAID5, raid5_compute_sector will set qd_idx
to "~0" so j with certainly not equals qd_idx, so there is no need
for a guard on that condition.
So remove the guard and remove the arg from the declaration and
callers of handle_stripe_expansion.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
By defining the 'stripe_head_state' in 'handle_stripe', we can move
some common code out of handle_stripe[56]() and into handle_stripe.
The means that all accesses for stripe_head_state in handle_stripe[56]
need to be 's->' instead of 's.', but the compiler should inline
those functions and just use a direct stack reference, and future
patches while hoist most of this code up into handle_stripe()
so we will revert to "s.".
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
Adding these three fields will allow more common code to be moved
to handle_stripe()
struct field rearrangement by Namhyung Kim.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
'struct stripe_head_state' stores state about the 'current' stripe
that is passed around while handling the stripe.
For RAID6 there is an extension structure: r6_state, which is also
passed around.
There is no value in keeping these separate, so move the fields from
the latter into the former.
This means that all code now needs to treat s->failed_num as an small
array, but this is a small cost.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
There is common code at the start of handle_stripe5 and
handle_stripe6. Move it into handle_stripe.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
sh->lock is now mainly used to ensure that two threads aren't running
in the locked part of handle_stripe[56] at the same time.
That can more neatly be achieved with an 'active' flag which we set
while running handle_stripe. If we find the flag is set, we simply
requeue the stripe for later by setting STRIPE_HANDLE.
For safety we take ->device_lock while examining the state of the
stripe and creating a summary in 'stripe_head_state / r6_state'.
This possibly isn't needed but as shared fields like ->toread,
->towrite are checked it is safer for now at least.
We leave the label after the old 'unlock' called "unlock" because it
will disappear in a few patches, so renaming seems pointless.
This leaves the stripe 'locked' for longer as we clear STRIPE_ACTIVE
later, but that is not a problem.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
Other places that change or follow dev->towrite and dev->written take
the device_lock as well as the sh->lock.
So it should really be held in these places too.
Also, doing so will allow sh->lock to be discarded.
with merged fixes by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
NeilBrown
Namhyung Kim
Christian Dietrich