Re: [PATCH 1/4] md/raid10: prepare per-r10bio dev slot tracking
Paul Menzel <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.raid |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dear Cheng, Am 22.04.26 um 04:33 schrieb Chen Cheng: > From: Chen Cheng <[email protected]> > > raid10 reuses r10bio objects from both r10bio_pool and r10buf_pool. Track > the number of devs[] slots used by each request in the r10bio itself and > initialize it whenever one of these objects is reused. > > No functional change yet. A later patch will use this width when reshape > changes conf->geo.raid_disks. Your Signed-off-by: line is missing. > --- > drivers/md/raid10.c | 4 ++++ > drivers/md/raid10.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c > index 0653b5d8545a..e93933632893 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c > +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c > @@ -1540,6 +1540,7 @@ static void __make_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio, int sectors) > r10_bio->sector = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector; > r10_bio->state = 0; > r10_bio->read_slot = -1; > + r10_bio->used_nr_devs = conf->geo.raid_disks; > memset(r10_bio->devs, 0, sizeof(r10_bio->devs[0]) * > conf->geo.raid_disks); > > @@ -1727,6 +1728,7 @@ static int raid10_handle_discard(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio) > r10_bio->mddev = mddev; > r10_bio->state = 0; > r10_bio->sectors = 0; > + r10_bio->used_nr_devs = geo->raid_disks; > memset(r10_bio->devs, 0, sizeof(r10_bio->devs[0]) * geo->raid_disks); > wait_blocked_dev(mddev, r10_bio); > > @@ -3061,6 +3063,8 @@ static struct r10bio *raid10_alloc_init_r10buf(struct r10conf *conf) > else > nalloc = 2; /* recovery */ > > + r10bio->used_nr_devs = nalloc; > + > for (i = 0; i < nalloc; i++) { > bio = r10bio->devs[i].bio; > rp = bio->bi_private; > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.h b/drivers/md/raid10.h > index ec79d87fb92f..92e8743023e6 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/raid10.h > +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.h > @@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ struct r10bio { > * if the IO is in READ direction, then this is where we read > */ > int read_slot; > + unsigned int used_nr_devs; Most entries have a comment describing the use. Maybe add one too, or at least a blank line, so it’s clear that the existing comment is just for `read_slot`? > > struct list_head retry_list; > /* From a performance and resource usage point of view, will increasing the struct have a negative impact? The diff looks good. Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <[email protected]> Kind regards, Paul