Re: [RFC 1/2] MD: raid5 trim support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 4/18/12 4:26 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:46:03 -0700 Dan Williams<dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Shaohua Li<shli@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
Discard for raid4/5/6 has limitation. If discard request size is small, we do
discard for one disk, but we need calculate parity and write parity disk.  To
correctly calculate parity, zero_after_discard must be guaranteed.

I'm wondering if we could use the new bad blocks facility to mark
discarded ranges so we don't necessarily need determinate data after
discard.

...but I have not looked into it beyond that.

--
Dan

No.

The bad blocks framework can only store a limited number of bad ranges - 512
in the current implementation.
That would not be an acceptable restriction for discarded ranges.

You would need a bitmap of some sort if you wanted to record discarded
regions.

http://neil.brown.name/blog/20110216044002#5

This appears to remove the unnecessary resync for discarded range after a crash or discard error, eg an enhancement. From my understanding, it can't remove the limitation I mentioned in the patch. For raid5, we still need discard a whole
stripe (discarding one disk but writing parity disk isn't good).

Thanks,
Shaohua
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Managing RAID on Linux]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device-Mapper]     [Kernel]     [Linux Books]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Photos]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite News]     [AMD 64]     [Linux Networking]

Add to Google Powered by Linux