Skip to content

L
linux
Switch branch/tag
  1. 05 Jan, 2012 13 commits
  3. 04 Jan, 2012 1 commit
  5. 03 Jan, 2012 1 commit
  7. 24 Dec, 2011 3 commits
  9. 23 Dec, 2011 18 commits
  11. 22 Dec, 2011 4 commits
    • Linus Torvalds's avatar
      Merge branch 'for-linus' of git://neil.brown.name/md · ad1fca20
      Linus Torvalds authored 
      * 'for-linus' of git://neil.brown.name/md:
  md/bitmap: It is OK to clear bits during recovery.
  md: don't give up looking for spares on first failure-to-add
  md/raid5: ensure correct assessment of drives during degraded reshape.
  md/linear: fix hot-add of devices to linear arrays.
      ad1fca20
    • NeilBrown's avatar
      md/bitmap: It is OK to clear bits during recovery. · 961902c0
      NeilBrown authored 
      commit d0a4bb49 introduced a
regression which is annoying but fairly harmless.

When writing to an array that is undergoing recovery (a spare
in being integrated into the array), writing to the array will
set bits in the bitmap, but they will not be cleared when the
write completes.

For bits covering areas that have not been recovered yet this is not a
problem as the recovery will clear the bits.  However bits set in
already-recovered region will stay set and never be cleared.
This doesn't risk data integrity.  The only negatives are:
 - next time there is a crash, more resyncing than necessary will
   be done.
 - the bitmap doesn't look clean, which is confusing.

While an array is recovering we don't want to update the
'events_cleared' setting in the bitmap but we do still want to clear
bits that have very recently been set - providing they were written to
the recovering device.

So split those two needs - which previously both depended on 'success'
and always clear the bit of the write went to all devices.
Signed-off-by: default avatarNeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
      961902c0
    • NeilBrown's avatar
      md: don't give up looking for spares on first failure-to-add · 60fc1370
      NeilBrown authored 
      Before performing a recovery we try to remove any spares that
might not be working, then add any that might have become relevant.

Currently we abort on the first spare that cannot be added.
This is a false optimisation.
It is conceivable that - depending on rules in the personality - a
subsequent spare might be accepted.
Also the loop does other things like count the available spares and
reset the 'recovery_offset' value.

If we abort early these might not happen properly.

So remove the early abort.

In particular if you have an array what is undergoing recovery and
which has extra spares, then the recovery may not restart after as
reboot as the could of 'spares' might end up as zero.
Reported-by: default avatarAnssi Hannula <anssi.hannula@iki.fi>
Signed-off-by: default avatarNeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
      60fc1370
    • NeilBrown's avatar
      md/raid5: ensure correct assessment of drives during degraded reshape. · 30d7a483
      NeilBrown authored 
      While reshaping a degraded array (as when reshaping a RAID0 by first
converting it to a degraded RAID4) we currently get confused about
which devices are in_sync.  In most cases we get it right, but in the
region that is being reshaped we need to treat non-failed devices as
in-sync when we have the data but haven't actually written it out yet.
Reported-by: default avatarAdam Kwolek <adam.kwolek@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarNeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
      30d7a483
GitLab Nexedi Edition | About GitLab | About Nexedi | 沪ICP备2021021310号-2 | 沪ICP备2021021310号-7