On 01/31/2018 04:38 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 30.01.2018 08:30, Anand Jain wrote:
Adds the mount option:
mount -o read_mirror_policy=<devid>
To set the devid of the device which should be used for read. That
means all the normal reads will go to that particular device only.
This also helps testing and gives a better control for the test
scripts including mount context reads.
Some code comments below. OTOH, does such policy really make sense, what
happens if the selected device fails, will the other mirror be retried?
Everything as usual, read_mirror_policy=devid just lets the user to
specify his read optimized disk, so that we don't depend on the pid
to pick a stripe mirrored disk, and instead we would pick as suggested
by the user, and if that disk fails then we go back to the other mirror
which may not be the read optimized disk as we have no other choice.
If the answer to the previous question is positive then why do we really
care which device is going to be tried first?
It matters.
- If you are reading from both disks alternatively, then it
duplicates the LUN cache on the storage.
- Some disks are read-optimized and using that for reading and going
back to the other disk only when this disk fails provides a better
overall read performance.
::
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 39ba59832f38..478623e6e074 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -5270,6 +5270,16 @@ static int find_live_mirror(struct btrfs_fs_info
*fs_info,
num = map->num_stripes;
switch(fs_info->read_mirror_policy) {
+ case BTRFS_READ_MIRROR_BY_DEV:
+ optimal = first;
+ if (test_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_READ_MIRROR,
+ &map->stripes[optimal].dev->dev_state))
+ break;
+ if (test_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_READ_MIRROR,
+ &map->stripes[++optimal].dev->dev_state))
+ break;
+ optimal = first;
you set optimal 2 times, the second one seems redundant.
No actually. When both the disks containing the stripe does not
have the BTRFS_DEV_STATE_READ_MIRROR, then I would just want to
use first found stripe.
Alongside this
patch it makes sense to also send a patch to btrfs(5) man page
describing the mount option + description of each implemented allocation
policy.
Yep. Will do.
Another thing which I don't see here is how you are handling the case
when you have more than 2 devices in the RAID1 case. As it stands
currently you assume there are two devices and first test device 0 and
then device 1 and completely ignore any other devices.
Not really. That part is already handled by the extent mapping.
As the number of stripe for raid1 is two, the extent mapping will
manage put related two devices of this stripe.
Thanks, Anand
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
