On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 08:52:42PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> With the foundamental ideas and helper routines from badblocks_set()
> improvement, clearing bad block for multiple ranges is much simpler.
>
> With a similar idea from badblocks_set() improvement, this patch
> simplifies bad block range clearing into 5 situations. No matter how
> complicated the clearing condition is, we just look at the head part
> of clearing range with relative already set bad block range from the
> bad block table. The rested part will be handled in next run of the
> while-loop.
>
> Based on existing helpers added from badblocks_set(), this patch adds
> two more helpers,
> - front_clear()
> Clear the bad block range from bad block table which is front
> overlapped with the clearing range.
> - front_splitting_clear()
> Handle the condition that the clearing range hits middle of an
> already set bad block range from bad block table.
>
> Similar as badblocks_set(), the first part of clearing range is handled
> with relative bad block range which is find by prev_badblocks(). In most
> cases a valid hint is provided to prev_badblocks() to avoid unnecessary
> bad block table iteration.
>
> This patch also explains the detail algorithm code comments at beginning
> of badblocks.c, including which five simplified situations are categried
> and how all the bad block range clearing conditions are handled by these
> five situations.
>
> Again, in order to make the code review easier and avoid the code
> changes mixed together, this patch does not modify badblock_clear() and
> implement another routine called _badblock_clear() for the improvement.
> Later patch will delete current code of badblock_clear() and make it as
> a wrapper to _badblock_clear(), so the code change can be much clear for
> review.
>
> Signed-off-by: Coly Li <[email protected]>
> Cc: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
> Cc: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
> Cc: NeilBrown <[email protected]>
> Cc: Vishal L Verma <[email protected]>
> ---
> block/badblocks.c | 325 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 325 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/block/badblocks.c b/block/badblocks.c
> index 13eaad18be15..c188b2e98140 100644
> --- a/block/badblocks.c
> +++ b/block/badblocks.c
> @@ -330,6 +330,123 @@
> * avoided. In my test with the hint to prev_badblocks(), except for the
> first
> * loop, all rested calls to prev_badblocks() can go into the fast path and
> * return correct bad blocks table index immediately.
> + *
> + *
> + * Clearing a bad blocks range from the bad block table has similar idea as
> + * setting does, but much more simpler. The only thing needs to be noticed is
> + * when the clearning range hits middle of a bad block range, the existing
> bad
clearning -> clearing
> + * block range will split into two, and one more item should be added into
> the
> + * bad block table. The simplified situations to beconsidered are, (The
> already
beconsidered -> be considered
> + * set bad blocks ranges in bad block table are naming with prefix E, and the
> + * clearing bad blocks range is naming with prefix C)
> + *
> + * 1) A clearing range is not overlapped to any already set ranges in bad
> block
> + * table.
> + * +-----+ | +-----+ | +-----+
> + * | C | | | C | | | C |
> + * +-----+ or +-----+ or +-----+
> + * +---+ | +----+ +----+ | +---+
> + * | E | | | E1 | | E2 | | | E |
> + * +---+ | +----+ +----+ | +---+
> + * For the above situations, no bad block to be cleared and no failure
> + * happens, simply returns 0.
> + * 2) The clearing range hits middle of an already setting bad blocks range
> in
> + * the bad block table.
> + * +---+
> + * | C |
> + * +---+
> + * +-----------------+
> + * | E |
> + * +-----------------+
> + * In this situation if the bad block table is not full, the range E will
> be
> + * split into two ranges E1 and E2. The result is,
> + * +------+ +------+
> + * | E1 | | E2 |
> + * +------+ +------+
> + * 3) The clearing range starts exactly at same LBA as an already set bad
> block range
> + * from the bad block table.
> + * 3.1) Partially covered at head part
> + * +------------+
> + * | C |
> + * +------------+
> + * +-----------------+
> + * | E |
> + * +-----------------+
> + * For this situation, the overlapped already set range will update the
> + * start LBA to end of C and shrink the range to BB_LEN(E) - BB_LEN(C). No
> + * item deleted from bad block table. The result is,
> + * +----+
> + * | E1 |
> + * +----+
> + * 3.2) Exact fully covered
> + * +-----------------+
> + * | C |
> + * +-----------------+
> + * +-----------------+
> + * | E |
> + * +-----------------+
> + * For this situation the whole bad blocks range E will be cleared and its
> + * corresponded item is deleted from the bad block table.
> + * 4) The clearing range exactly ends at same LBA as an already set bad block
> + * range.
> + * +-------+
> + * | C |
> + * +-------+
> + * +-----------------+
> + * | E |
> + * +-----------------+
> + * For the above situation, the already set range E is updated to shrink
> its
> + * end to the start of C, and reduce its length to BB_LEN(E) - BB_LEN(C).
> + * The result is,
> + * +---------+
> + * | E |
> + * +---------+
> + * 5) The clearing range is partially overlapped with an already set bad
> block
> + * range from the bad block table.
> + * 5.1) The already set bad block range is front overlapped with the clearing
> + * range.
> + * +----------+
> + * | C |
> + * +----------+
> + * +------------+
> + * | E |
> + * +------------+
> + * For such situation, the clearing range C can be treated as two parts.
> The
> + * first part ends at the start LBA of range E, and the second part starts
> at
> + * same LBA of range E.
> + * +----+-----+ +----+ +-----+
> + * | C1 | C2 | | C1 | | C2 |
> + * +----+-----+ ===> +----+ +-----+
> + * +------------+ +------------+
> + * | E | | E |
> + * +------------+ +------------+
> + * Now the first part C1 can be handled as condition 1), and the second
> part C2 can be
> + * handled as condition 3.1) in next loop.
> + * 5.2) The already set bad block range is behind overlaopped with the
> clearing
> + * range.
> + * +----------+
> + * | C |
> + * +----------+
> + * +------------+
> + * | E |
> + * +------------+
> + * For such situation, the clearing range C can be treated as two parts.
> The
> + * first part C1 ends at same end LBA of range E, and the second part
> starts
> + * at end LBA of range E.
> + * +----+-----+ +----+ +-----+
> + * | C1 | C2 | | C1 | | C2 |
> + * +----+-----+ ===> +----+ +-----+
> + * +------------+ +------------+
> + * | E | | E |
> + * +------------+ +------------+
> + * Now the first part clearing range C1 can be handled as condition 4), and
> + * the second part clearing range C2 can be handled as condition 1) in next
> + * loop.
> + *
> + * All bad blocks range clearing can be simplified into the above 5
> situations
> + * by only handling the head part of the clearing range in each run of the
> + * while-loop. The idea is similar to bad blocks range setting but much
> + * simpler.
> */
>
> /*
> @@ -930,6 +1047,214 @@ static int _badblocks_set(struct badblocks *bb,
> sector_t s, int sectors,
> return rv;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Clear the bad block range from bad block table which is front overlapped
> + * with the clearing range. The return value is how many sectors from an
> + * already set bad block range are cleared. If the whole bad block range is
> + * covered by the clearing range and fully cleared, 'delete' is set as 1 for
> + * the caller to reduce bb->count.
> + */
> +static int front_clear(struct badblocks *bb, int prev,
> + struct badblocks_context *bad, int *deleted)
> +{
> + sector_t sectors = bad->len;
> + sector_t s = bad->start;
> + u64 *p = bb->page;
> + int cleared = 0;
> +
> + *deleted = 0;
> + if (s == BB_OFFSET(p[prev])) {
> + if (BB_LEN(p[prev]) > sectors) {
> + p[prev] = BB_MAKE(BB_OFFSET(p[prev]) + sectors,
> + BB_LEN(p[prev]) - sectors,
> + BB_ACK(p[prev]));
> + cleared = sectors;
> + } else {
> + /* BB_LEN(p[prev]) <= sectors */
> + cleared = BB_LEN(p[prev]);
> + if ((prev + 1) < bb->count)
> + memmove(p + prev, p + prev + 1,
> + (bb->count - prev - 1) * 8);
> + *deleted = 1;
> + }
> + } else if (s > BB_OFFSET(p[prev])) {
> + if (BB_END(p[prev]) <= (s + sectors)) {
> + cleared = BB_END(p[prev]) - s;
> + p[prev] = BB_MAKE(BB_OFFSET(p[prev]),
> + s - BB_OFFSET(p[prev]),
> + BB_ACK(p[prev]));
> + } else {
> + /* Splitting is handled in front_splitting_clear() */
> + BUG();
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return cleared;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Handle the condition that the clearing range hits middle of an already set
> + * bad block range from bad block table. In this condition the existing bad
> + * block range is split into two after the middle part is cleared.
> + */
> +static int front_splitting_clear(struct badblocks *bb, int prev,
> + struct badblocks_context *bad)
> +{
> + u64 *p = bb->page;
> + u64 end = BB_END(p[prev]);
> + int ack = BB_ACK(p[prev]);
> + sector_t sectors = bad->len;
> + sector_t s = bad->start;
> +
> + p[prev] = BB_MAKE(BB_OFFSET(p[prev]),
> + s - BB_OFFSET(p[prev]),
> + ack);
> + memmove(p + prev + 2, p + prev + 1, (bb->count - prev - 1) * 8);
> + p[prev + 1] = BB_MAKE(s + sectors, end - s - sectors, ack);
> + return sectors;
> +}
> +
> +/* Do the exact work to clear bad block range from the bad block table */
> +static int _badblocks_clear(struct badblocks *bb, sector_t s, int sectors)
> +{
> + struct badblocks_context bad;
> + int prev = -1, hint = -1;
> + int len = 0, cleared = 0;
> + int rv = 0;
> + u64 *p;
> +
> + if (bb->shift < 0)
> + /* badblocks are disabled */
> + return 1;
> +
> + if (sectors == 0)
> + /* Invalid sectors number */
> + return 1;
> +
> + if (bb->shift) {
> + sector_t target;
> +
> + /* When clearing we round the start up and the end down.
> + * This should not matter as the shift should align with
> + * the block size and no rounding should ever be needed.
> + * However it is better the think a block is bad when it
> + * isn't than to think a block is not bad when it is.
> + */
> + target = s + sectors;
> + roundup(s, bb->shift);
> + rounddown(target, bb->shift);
> + sectors = target - s;
> + }
> +
> + write_seqlock_irq(&bb->lock);
> +
> + bad.ack = true;
> + p = bb->page;
> +
> +re_clear:
> + bad.start = s;
> + bad.len = sectors;
> +
> + if (badblocks_empty(bb)) {
> + len = sectors;
> + cleared++;
> + goto update_sectors;
> + }
> +
> +
This duplicate empty line can be dropped.
Thanks,
-Geliang
> + prev = prev_badblocks(bb, &bad, hint);
> +
> + /* Start before all badblocks */
> + if (prev < 0) {
> + if (overlap_behind(bb, &bad, 0)) {
> + len = BB_OFFSET(p[0]) - s;
> + hint = prev;
> + } else {
> + len = sectors;
> + }
> + /*
> + * Both situations are to clear non-bad range,
> + * should be treated as successful
> + */
> + cleared++;
> + goto update_sectors;
> + }
> +
> + /* Start after all badblocks */
> + if ((prev + 1) >= bb->count && !overlap_front(bb, prev, &bad)) {
> + len = sectors;
> + cleared++;
> + goto update_sectors;
> + }
> +
> + /* Clear will split a bad record but the table is full */
> + if (badblocks_full(bb) && (BB_OFFSET(p[prev]) < bad.start) &&
> + (BB_END(p[prev]) > (bad.start + sectors))) {
> + len = sectors;
> + goto update_sectors;
> + }
> +
> + if (overlap_front(bb, prev, &bad)) {
> + if ((BB_OFFSET(p[prev]) < bad.start) &&
> + (BB_END(p[prev]) > (bad.start + bad.len))) {
> + /* Splitting */
> + if ((bb->count + 1) < MAX_BADBLOCKS) {
> + len = front_splitting_clear(bb, prev, &bad);
> + bb->count += 1;
> + cleared++;
> + } else {
> + /* No space to split, give up */
> + len = sectors;
> + }
> + } else {
> + int deleted = 0;
> +
> + len = front_clear(bb, prev, &bad, &deleted);
> + bb->count -= deleted;
> + cleared++;
> + hint = prev;
> + }
> +
> + goto update_sectors;
> + }
> +
> + /* Not front overlap, but behind overlap */
> + if ((prev + 1) < bb->count && overlap_behind(bb, &bad, prev + 1)) {
> + len = BB_OFFSET(p[prev + 1]) - bad.start;
> + hint = prev + 1;
> + /* Clear non-bad range should be treated as successful */
> + cleared++;
> + goto update_sectors;
> + }
> +
> + /* Not cover any badblocks range in the table */
> + len = sectors;
> + /* Clear non-bad range should be treated as successful */
> + cleared++;
> +
> +update_sectors:
> + s += len;
> + sectors -= len;
> +
> + if (sectors > 0)
> + goto re_clear;
> +
> + WARN_ON(sectors < 0);
> +
> + if (cleared) {
> + badblocks_update_acked(bb);
> + set_changed(bb);
> + }
> +
> + write_sequnlock_irq(&bb->lock);
> +
> + if (!cleared)
> + rv = 1;
> +
> + return rv;
> +}
> +
> +
> /**
> * badblocks_check() - check a given range for bad sectors
> * @bb: the badblocks structure that holds all badblock
> information
> --
> 2.31.1
>
