If there are not enough stripes to handle, we'd better not always
queue all available work_structs. If one worker can only handle small
or even none stripes, it will impact request merge and create lock
contention.

With this patch, the number of work_struct running will depend on
pending stripes number. Note: some statistics info used in the patch
are accessed without locking protection. This should doesn't matter,
we just try best to avoid queue unnecessary work_struct.

Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>

make_request() access various shape parameters (raid_disks, chunk_size
etc) which might be changed by raid5_start_reshape().

If the later is called at and awkward time during the form, the wrong
stripe_head might be used.

So introduce a 'seqcount' and after finding a stripe_head make sure
there is no reason to expect that we got the wrong one.

Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>

This is another attempt to create multiple threads to handle raid5 stripes.
This time I use workqueue.

raid5 handles request (especially write) in stripe unit. A stripe is page size
aligned/long and acrosses all disks. Writing to any disk sector, raid5 runs a
state machine for the corresponding stripe, which includes reading some disks
of the stripe, calculating parity, and writing some disks of the stripe. The
state machine is running in raid5d thread currently. Since there is only one
thread, it doesn't scale well for high speed storage. An obvious solution is
multi-threading.

To get better performance, we have some requirements:
a. locality. stripe corresponding to request submitted from one cpu is better
handled in thread in local cpu or local node. local cpu is preferred but some
times could be a bottleneck, for example, parity calculation is too heavy.
local node running has wide adaptability.
b. configurablity. Different setup of raid5 array might need diffent
configuration. Especially the thread number. More threads don't always mean
better performance because of lock contentions.

My original implementation is creating some kernel threads. There are
interfaces to control which cpu's stripe each thread should handle. And
userspace can set affinity of the threads. This provides biggest flexibility
and configurability. But it's hard to use and apparently a new thread pool
implementation is disfavor.

Recent workqueue improvement is quite promising. unbound workqueue will be
bound to numa node. If WQ_SYSFS is set in workqueue, there are sysfs option to
do affinity setting. For example, we can only include one HT sibling in
affinity. Since work is non-reentrant by default, and we can control running
thread number by limiting dispatched work_struct number.

In this patch, I created several stripe worker group. A group is a numa node.
stripes from cpus of one node will be added to a group list. Workqueue thread
of one node will only handle stripes of worker group of the node. In this way,
stripe handling has numa node locality. And as I said, we can control thread
number by limiting dispatched work_struct number.

The work_struct callback function handles several stripes in one run. A typical
work queue usage is to run one unit in each work_struct. In raid5 case, the
unit is a stripe. But we can't do that:
a. Though handling a stripe doesn't need lock because of reference accounting
and stripe isn't in any list, queuing a work_struct for each stripe will make
workqueue lock contended very heavily.
b. blk_start_plug()/blk_finish_plug() should surround stripe handle, as we
might dispatch request. If each work_struct only handles one stripe, such block
plug is meaningless.

This implementation can't do very fine grained configuration. But the numa
binding is most popular usage model, should be enough for most workloads.

Note: since we have only one stripe queue, switching to multi-thread might
decrease request size dispatching down to low level layer. The impact depends
on thread number, raid configuration and workload. So multi-thread raid5 might
not be proper for all setups.

Changes V1 -> V2:
1. remove WQ_NON_REENTRANT
2. disabling multi-threading by default
3. Add more descriptions in changelog

Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>

release_stripe still has big lock contention. We just add the stripe to a llist
without taking device_lock. We let the raid5d thread to do the real stripe
release, which must hold device_lock anyway. In this way, release_stripe
doesn't hold any locks.

The side effect is the released stripes order is changed. But sounds not a big
deal, stripes are never handled in order. And I thought block layer can already
do nice request merge, which means order isn't that important.

I kept the unplug release batch, which is unnecessary with this patch from lock
contention avoid point of view, and actually if we delete it, the stripe_head
release_list and lru can share storage. But the unplug release batch is also
helpful for request merge. We probably can delay wakeup raid5d till unplug, but
I'm still afraid of the case which raid5d is running.

Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>

If a device in a RAID4/5/6 is being replaced while another is being
recovered, then the writes to the replacement device currently don't
happen, resulting in corruption when the replacement completes and the
new drive takes over.

This is because the replacement writes are only triggered when
's.replacing' is set and not when the similar 's.sync' is set (which
is the case during resync and recovery - it means all devices need to
be read).

So schedule those writes when s.replacing is set as well.

In this case we cannot use "STRIPE_INSYNC" to record that the
replacement has happened as that is needed for recording that any
parity calculation is complete.  So introduce STRIPE_REPLACED to
record if the replacement has happened.

For safety we should also check that STRIPE_COMPUTE_RUN is not set.
This has a similar effect to the "s.locked == 0" test.  The latter
ensure that now IO has been flagged but not started.  The former
checks if any parity calculation has been flagged by not started.
We must wait for both of these to complete before triggering the
'replace'.

Add a similar test to the subsequent check for "are we finished yet".
This possibly isn't needed (is subsumed in the STRIPE_INSYNC test),
but it makes it more obvious that the REPLACE will happen before we
think we are finished.

Finally if a NeedReplace device is not UPTODATE then that is an
error.  We really must trigger a warning.

This bug was introduced in commit 9a3e1101b827a59ac9036a672f5fa8d5279d0fe2
(md/raid5:  detect and handle replacements during recovery.)
which introduced replacement for raid5.
That was in 3.3-rc3, so any stable kernel since then would benefit
from this fix.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org (3.3+)
Reported-by: qindehua <13691222965@163.com>
Tested-by: qindehua <qindehua@163.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>

Once instance of this Kconfig macro remained after commit
51acbcec6c42b24482bac18e42befc822524535d ("md: remove
CONFIG_MULTICORE_RAID456"). Remove that one too. And, while we're at it,
also remove it from the defconfig files that carry it.

Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>

A number of problems can occur due to races between
resync/recovery and discard.

- if sync_request calls handle_stripe() while a discard is
  happening on the stripe, it might call handle_stripe_clean_event
  before all of the individual discard requests have completed
  (so some devices are still locked, but not all).
  Since commit ca64cae96037de16e4af92678814f5d4bf0c1c65
     md/raid5: Make sure we clear R5_Discard when discard is finished.
  this will cause R5_Discard to be cleared for the parity device,
  so handle_stripe_clean_event() will not be called when the other
  devices do become unlocked, so their ->written will not be cleared.
  This ultimately leads to a WARN_ON in init_stripe and a lock-up.

- If handle_stripe_clean_event() does clear R5_UPTODATE at an awkward
  time for resync, it can lead to s->uptodate being less than disks
  in handle_parity_checks5(), which triggers a BUG (because it is
  one).

So:
 - keep R5_Discard on the parity device until all other devices have
   completed their discard request
 - make sure we don't try to have a 'discard' and a 'sync' action at
   the same time.
   This involves a new stripe flag to we know when a 'discard' is
   happening, and the use of R5_Overlap on the parity disk so when a
   discard is wanted while a sync is active, so we know to wake up
   the discard at the appropriate time.

Discard support for RAID5 was added in 3.7, so this is suitable for
any -stable kernel since 3.7.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org (v3.7+)
Reported-by: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>

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. Even it's true, we need do discard for one disk
but write another disks, which makes the parity disks wear out
fast. This doesn't make sense. So an efficient discard for raid4/5/6
should discard all data disks and parity disks, which requires the
write pattern to be (A, A+chunk_size, A+chunk_size*2...). If A's size
is smaller than chunk_size, such pattern is almost impossible in
practice. So in this patch, I only handle the case that A's size
equals to chunk_size. That is discard request should be aligned to
stripe size and its size is multiple of stripe size.

Since we can only handle request with specific alignment and size (or
part of the request fitting stripes), we can't guarantee
zero_after_discard even zero_after_discard is true in low level
drives.

The block layer doesn't send down correctly aligned requests even
correct discard alignment is set, so I must filter out.

For raid4/5/6 parity calculation, if data is 0, parity is 0. So if
zero_after_discard is true for all disks, data is consistent after
discard.  Otherwise, data might be lost. Let's consider a scenario:
discard a stripe, write data to one disk and write parity disk. The
stripe could be still inconsistent till then depending on using data
from other data disks or parity disks to calculate new parity. If the
disk is broken, we can't restore it. So in this patch, we only enable
discard support if all disks have zero_after_discard.

If discard fails in one disk, we face the similar inconsistent issue
above. The patch will make discard follow the same path as normal
write request. If discard fails, a resync will be scheduled to make
the data consistent. This isn't good to have extra writes, but data
consistency is important.

If a subsequent read/write request hits raid5 cache of a discarded
stripe, the discarded dev page should have zero filled, so the data is
consistent. This patch will always zero dev page for discarded request
stripe. This isn't optimal because discard request doesn't need such
payload. Next patch will avoid it.

Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>

Pull additional md update from NeilBrown:
 "This contains a few patches that depend on plugging changes in the
  block layer so needed to wait for those.

  It also contains a Kconfig fix for the new RAID10 support in dm-raid."

* tag 'md-3.6' of git://neil.brown.name/md:
  md/dm-raid: DM_RAID should select MD_RAID10
  md/raid1: submit IO from originating thread instead of md thread.
  raid5: raid5d handle stripe in batch way
  raid5: make_request use batch stripe release

make_request() does stripe release for every stripe and the stripe usually has
count 1, which makes previous release_stripe() optimization not work. In my
test, this release_stripe() becomes the heaviest pleace to take
conf->device_lock after previous patches applied.

Below patch makes stripe release batch. All the stripes will be released in
unplug. The STRIPE_ON_UNPLUG_LIST bit is to protect concurrent access stripe
lru.

Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>