On 01/31/2018 09:42 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
So usually this should be functionality handled by the raid/san
controller I guess, > but given that btrfs is playing the role of a
controller here at what point are we drawing the line of not
implementing block-level functionality into the filesystem ?
Don't worry this is not invading into the block layer. How
can you even build this functionality in the block layer ?
Block layer even won't know that disks are mirrored. RAID
does or BTRFS in our case.
By block layer I guess I meant the storage driver of a particular raid
card. Because what is currently happening is re-implementing
functionality that will generally sit in the driver. So my question was
more generic and high-level - at what point do we draw the line of
implementing feature that are generally implemented in hardware devices
(be it their drivers or firmware).
Not all HW configs use RAID capable HBAs. A server connected to a SATA
JBOD using a SATA HBA without MD will relay on BTRFS to provide all the
features and capabilities that otherwise would have provided by such a
presumable HW config.
::
::
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.
Yes, and the fact that you've already set optimal = first right after
BTRFS_READ_MIRROR_BY_DEV ensures that, no ? Why do you need to again set
optimal right before the final break? What am I missing here?
Ah. I think you are missing ++optimal in the 2nd if.
You are right, but I'd prefer you index the stripes array with 'optimal'
and 'optimal + 1' and leave just a single assignment
Ok. Will improve that.
Thanks, Anand
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
--
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
