Skip to content

Commit e33fbb9

Browse files
committed
md/raid5-cache: exclude reclaiming stripes in reclaim check
stripes which are being reclaimed are still accounted into cached stripes. The reclaim takes time. r5c_do_reclaim isn't aware of the stripes and does unnecessary stripe reclaim. In practice, I saw one stripe is reclaimed one time. This will cause bad IO pattern. Fixing this by excluding the reclaing stripes in the check. Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>
1 parent e8fd52e commit e33fbb9

File tree

3 files changed

+16
-2
lines changed

3 files changed

+16
-2
lines changed

drivers/md/raid5-cache.c

Lines changed: 12 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1327,6 +1327,10 @@ static void r5c_flush_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, struct stripe_head *sh)
13271327
atomic_inc(&conf->active_stripes);
13281328
r5c_make_stripe_write_out(sh);
13291329

1330+
if (test_bit(STRIPE_R5C_PARTIAL_STRIPE, &sh->state))
1331+
atomic_inc(&conf->r5c_flushing_partial_stripes);
1332+
else
1333+
atomic_inc(&conf->r5c_flushing_full_stripes);
13301334
raid5_release_stripe(sh);
13311335
}
13321336

@@ -1369,12 +1373,16 @@ static void r5c_do_reclaim(struct r5conf *conf)
13691373
unsigned long flags;
13701374
int total_cached;
13711375
int stripes_to_flush;
1376+
int flushing_partial, flushing_full;
13721377

13731378
if (!r5c_is_writeback(log))
13741379
return;
13751380

1381+
flushing_partial = atomic_read(&conf->r5c_flushing_partial_stripes);
1382+
flushing_full = atomic_read(&conf->r5c_flushing_full_stripes);
13761383
total_cached = atomic_read(&conf->r5c_cached_partial_stripes) +
1377-
atomic_read(&conf->r5c_cached_full_stripes);
1384+
atomic_read(&conf->r5c_cached_full_stripes) -
1385+
flushing_full - flushing_partial;
13781386

13791387
if (total_cached > conf->min_nr_stripes * 3 / 4 ||
13801388
atomic_read(&conf->empty_inactive_list_nr) > 0)
@@ -1384,7 +1392,7 @@ static void r5c_do_reclaim(struct r5conf *conf)
13841392
*/
13851393
stripes_to_flush = R5C_RECLAIM_STRIPE_GROUP;
13861394
else if (total_cached > conf->min_nr_stripes * 1 / 2 ||
1387-
atomic_read(&conf->r5c_cached_full_stripes) >
1395+
atomic_read(&conf->r5c_cached_full_stripes) - flushing_full >
13881396
R5C_FULL_STRIPE_FLUSH_BATCH)
13891397
/*
13901398
* if stripe cache pressure moderate, or if there is many full
@@ -2601,11 +2609,13 @@ void r5c_finish_stripe_write_out(struct r5conf *conf,
26012609

26022610
if (test_and_clear_bit(STRIPE_R5C_PARTIAL_STRIPE, &sh->state)) {
26032611
BUG_ON(atomic_read(&conf->r5c_cached_partial_stripes) == 0);
2612+
atomic_dec(&conf->r5c_flushing_partial_stripes);
26042613
atomic_dec(&conf->r5c_cached_partial_stripes);
26052614
}
26062615

26072616
if (test_and_clear_bit(STRIPE_R5C_FULL_STRIPE, &sh->state)) {
26082617
BUG_ON(atomic_read(&conf->r5c_cached_full_stripes) == 0);
2618+
atomic_dec(&conf->r5c_flushing_full_stripes);
26092619
atomic_dec(&conf->r5c_cached_full_stripes);
26102620
}
26112621
}

drivers/md/raid5.c

Lines changed: 2 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -6838,6 +6838,8 @@ static struct r5conf *setup_conf(struct mddev *mddev)
68386838
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&conf->r5c_full_stripe_list);
68396839
atomic_set(&conf->r5c_cached_partial_stripes, 0);
68406840
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&conf->r5c_partial_stripe_list);
6841+
atomic_set(&conf->r5c_flushing_full_stripes, 0);
6842+
atomic_set(&conf->r5c_flushing_partial_stripes, 0);
68416843

68426844
conf->level = mddev->new_level;
68436845
conf->chunk_sectors = mddev->new_chunk_sectors;

drivers/md/raid5.h

Lines changed: 2 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -663,6 +663,8 @@ struct r5conf {
663663
struct list_head r5c_full_stripe_list;
664664
atomic_t r5c_cached_partial_stripes;
665665
struct list_head r5c_partial_stripe_list;
666+
atomic_t r5c_flushing_full_stripes;
667+
atomic_t r5c_flushing_partial_stripes;
666668

667669
atomic_t empty_inactive_list_nr;
668670
struct llist_head released_stripes;

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)