Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Too large badblocks sysfs file (was: [PATCH v3 0/7] badblocks improvement for multiple bad block ranges) | From | Coly Li <> | Date | Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:55:42 +0800 |
| |
On 9/23/21 6:09 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, Coly Li wrote: >> Hi all the kernel gurus, and folks in mailing lists, >> >> This is a question about exporting 4KB+ text information via sysfs >> interface. I need advice on how to handle the problem.
Hi Neil,
> Why do you think there is a problem? > As documented in Documentation/admin-guide/md.rst, the truncation at 1 > page is expected and by design.
Oh, thanks for letting me know this. Yes this is as-designed, so I will not worry more about this.
> > The "unacknowledge-bad-blocks" file is the important one that is needed > for correct behaviour. Being able to read a single block is sufficient, > though being able to read more than one could provide better performance > in some cases. > > The "bad-blocks" file primarily exist to provide visibility into the > state of the system - useful during development. It can be written to > to add bad blocks. I never *needs* to be read from.
Thanks for the hint.
> > The authoritative source of information about the set of bad blocks is > the on-disk data the can be and should be read directly...
The reply is informative. It is more clear for me.
Coly Li
> > Except that mdadm does. That was a mistake. check_for_cleared_bb() is > wrong. I wonder why it was added. The commit message doesn't give any > justification. > > NeilBrown > > >> Recently I work on the bad blocks API (block/badblocks.c) improvement, >> there is a sysfs file to export the bad block ranges for me raid. E.g >> for a md raid1 device, file >> /sys/block/md0/md/rd0/bad_blocks >> may contain the following text content, >> 64 32 >> 128 8 >> The above lines mean there are two bad block ranges, one starts at LBA >> 64, length 32 sectors, another one starts at LBA 128 and length 8 >> sectors. All the content is generated from the internal bad block >> records with 512 elements. In my testing the worst case only 185 from >> 512 records can be displayed via the sysfs file if the LBA string is >> very long, e.g.the following content, >> 17668164135030776 512 >> 17668164135029776 512 >> 17668164135028776 512 >> 17668164135027776 512 >> ... ... >> The bad block ranges stored in internal bad blocks array are correct, >> but the output message is truncated. This is the problem I encountered. >> >> I don't see sysfs has seq_file support (correct me if I am wrong), and I >> know it is improper to transfer 4KB+ text via sysfs interface, but the >> code is here already for long time. >> >> There are 2 ideas to fix showing up in my brain, >> 1) Do not fix the problem >> Normally it is rare that a storage media has 100+ bad block ranges, >> maybe in real world all the existing bad blocks information won't exceed >> the page size limitation of sysfs file. >> 2) Add seq_file support to sysfs interface if there is no >> >> It is probably there is other better solution to fix. So I do want to >> get hint/advice from you. >> >> Thanks in advance for any comment :-) >> >> Coly Li >> >> On 9/14/21 12:36 AM, Coly Li wrote: >>> This is the second effort to improve badblocks code APIs to handle >>> multiple ranges in bad block table. >>> >>> There are 2 changes from previous version, >>> - Fixes 2 bugs in front_overwrite() which are detected by the user >>> space testing code. >>> - Provide the user space testing code in last patch. >>> >>> There is NO in-memory or on-disk format change in the whole series, all >>> existing API and data structures are consistent. This series just only >>> improve the code algorithm to handle more corner cases, the interfaces >>> are same and consistency to all existing callers (md raid and nvdimm >>> drivers). >>> >>> The original motivation of the change is from the requirement from our >>> customer, that current badblocks routines don't handle multiple ranges. >>> For example if the bad block setting range covers multiple ranges from >>> bad block table, only the first two bad block ranges merged and rested >>> ranges are intact. The expected behavior should be all the covered >>> ranges to be handled. >>> >>> All the patches are tested by modified user space code and the code >>> logic works as expected. The modified user space testing code is >>> provided in last patch. The testing code detects 2 defects in helper >>> front_overwrite() and fixed in this version. >>> >>> The whole change is divided into 6 patches to make the code review more >>> clear and easier. If people prefer, I'd like to post a single large >>> patch finally after the code review accomplished. >>> >>> This version is seriously tested, and so far no more defect observed. >>> >>> >>> Coly Li >>> >>> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> >>> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> >>> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> >>> Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> >>> Cc: Richard Fan <richard.fan@suse.com> >>> Cc: Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> >>> --- >>> Changelog: >>> v3: add tester Richard Fan <richard.fan@suse.com> >>> v2: the improved version, and with testing code. >>> v1: the first completed version. >>> >>> >>> Coly Li (6): >>> badblocks: add more helper structure and routines in badblocks.h >>> badblocks: add helper routines for badblock ranges handling >>> badblocks: improvement badblocks_set() for multiple ranges handling >>> badblocks: improve badblocks_clear() for multiple ranges handling >>> badblocks: improve badblocks_check() for multiple ranges handling >>> badblocks: switch to the improved badblock handling code >>> Coly Li (1): >>> test: user space code to test badblocks APIs >>> >>> block/badblocks.c | 1599 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- >>> include/linux/badblocks.h | 32 + >>> 2 files changed, 1340 insertions(+), 291 deletions(-) >>> >>
| |