IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
raid10 currently repurposes bi_phys_segments on each
incoming bio to count how many r10bio was used to encode the
request.
We need to know when the number of attached r10bio reaches
zero to:
1/ call bio_endio() when all IO on the bio is finished
2/ decrement ->nr_pending so that resync IO can proceed.
Now that the bio has its own __bi_remaining counter, that
can be used instead. We can call bio_inc_remaining to
increment the counter and call bio_endio() every time an
r10bio completes, rather than only when bi_phys_segments
reaches zero.
This addresses point 1, but not point 2. bio_endio()
doesn't (and cannot) report when the last r10bio has
finished, so a different approach is needed.
So: instead of counting bios in ->nr_pending, count r10bios.
i.e. every time we attach a bio, increment nr_pending.
Every time an r10bio completes, decrement nr_pending.
Normally we only increment nr_pending after first checking
that ->barrier is zero, or some other non-trivial tests and
possible waiting. When attaching multiple r10bios to a bio,
we only need the tests and the waiting once. After the
first increment, subsequent increments can happen
unconditionally as they are really all part of the one
request.
So introduce inc_pending() which can be used when we know
that nr_pending is already elevated.
Note that this fixes a bug. freeze_array() contains the line
atomic_read(&conf->nr_pending) == conf->nr_queued+extra,
which implies that the units for ->nr_pending, ->nr_queued and extra
are the same.
->nr_queue and extra count r10_bios, but prior to this patch,
->nr_pending counted bios. If a bio ever resulted in multiple
r10_bios (due to bad blocks), freeze_array() would not work correctly.
Now it does.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>
fd16f2e848