linux-toradex.git/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_nl.c, branch v4.12-rc1

block: remove the discard_zeroes_data flag

2017-04-08T17:25:38+00:00

Now that we use the proper REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES operation everywhere we can
kill this hack.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig 
Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen 
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke 
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

drbd: implement REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES

2017-04-08T17:25:38+00:00

It seems like DRBD assumes its on the wire TRIM request always zeroes data.
Use that fact to implement REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig 
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke 
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

block: Use pointer to backing_dev_info from request_queue

2017-02-02T15:20:48+00:00

We will want to have struct backing_dev_info allocated separately from
struct request_queue. As the first step add pointer to backing_dev_info
to request_queue and convert all users touching it. No functional
changes in this patch.

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig 
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara 
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

drbd: code cleanups without semantic changes

2016-06-14T03:43:07+00:00

This contains various cosmetic fixes ranging from simple typos to
const-ifying, and using booleans properly.

Original commit messages from Fabian's patch set:
drbd: debugfs: constify drbd_version_fops
drbd: use seq_put instead of seq_print where possible
drbd: include linux/uaccess.h instead of asm/uaccess.h
drbd: use const char * const for drbd strings
drbd: kerneldoc warning fix in w_e_end_data_req()
drbd: use unsigned for one bit fields
drbd: use bool for peer is_ states
drbd: fix typo
drbd: use | for bitmask combination
drbd: use true/false for bool
drbd: fix drbd_bm_init() comments
drbd: introduce peer state union
drbd: fix maybe_pull_ahead() locking comments
drbd: use bool for growing
drbd: remove redundant declarations
drbd: replace if/BUG by BUG_ON

Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick 
Signed-off-by: Roland Kammerer 
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

drbd: introduce WRITE_SAME support

2016-06-14T03:43:07+00:00

We will support WRITE_SAME, if
 * all peers support WRITE_SAME (both in kernel and DRBD version),
 * all peer devices support WRITE_SAME
 * logical_block_size is identical on all peers.

We may at some point introduce a fallback on the receiving side
for devices/kernels that do not support WRITE_SAME,
by open-coding a submit loop. But not yet.

Signed-off-by: Philipp Reisner 
Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg 
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

drbd: discard_zeroes_if_aligned allows "thin" resync for discard_zeroes_data=0

2016-06-14T03:43:06+00:00

Even if discard_zeroes_data != 0,
if discard_zeroes_if_aligned is set, we assume we can reliably
zero-out/discard using the drbd_issue_peer_discard() helper.

Signed-off-by: Philipp Reisner 
Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg 
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

drbd: don't forget error completion when "unsuspending" IO

2016-06-14T03:43:06+00:00

Possibly sequence of events:
SyncTarget is made Primary, then loses replication link
(only path to good data on SyncSource).

Behavior is then controlled by the on-no-data-accessible policy,
which defaults to OND_IO_ERROR (may be set to OND_SUSPEND_IO).

If OND_IO_ERROR is in fact the current policy, we clear the susp_fen
(IO suspended due to fencing policy) flag, do NOT set the susp_nod
(IO suspended due to no data) flag.

But we forgot to call the IO error completion for all pending,
suspended, requests.

While at it, also add a race check for a theoretically possible
race with a new handshake (network hickup), we may be able to
re-send requests, and can avoid passing IO errors up the stack.

Signed-off-by: Philipp Reisner 
Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg 
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

drbd: introduce unfence-peer handler

2016-06-14T03:43:06+00:00

When resync is finished, we already call the "after-resync-target"
handler (on the former sync target, obviously), once per volume.

Paired with the before-resync-target handler, you can create snapshots,
before the resync causes the volumes to become inconsistent,
and discard those snapshots again, once they are no longer needed.

It was also overloaded to be paired with the "fence-peer" handler,
to "unfence" once the volumes are up-to-date and known good.

This has some disadvantages, though: we call "fence-peer" for the whole
connection (once for the group of volumes), but would call unfence as
side-effect of after-resync-target once for each volume.

Also, we fence on a (current, or about to become) Primary,
which will later become the sync-source.

Calling unfence only as a side effect of the after-resync-target
handler opens a race window, between a new fence on the Primary
(SyncTarget) and the unfence on the SyncTarget, which is difficult to
close without some kind of "cluster wide lock" in those handlers.

We would not need those handlers if we could still communicate.
Which makes trying to aquire a cluster wide lock from those handlers
seem like a very bad idea.

This introduces the "unfence-peer" handler, which will be called
per connection (once for the group of volumes), just like the fence
handler, only once all volumes are back in sync, and on the SyncSource.

Which is expected to be the node that previously called "fence", the
node that is currently allowed to be Primary, and thus the only node
that could trigger a new "fence" that could race with this unfence.

Which makes us not need any cluster wide synchronization here,
serializing two scripts running on the same node is trivial.

Signed-off-by: Philipp Reisner 
Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg 
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

drbd: possibly disable discard support, if backend has discard_zeroes_data=0

2016-06-14T03:43:05+00:00

Now that we have the discard_zeroes_if_aligned setting, we should also
check it when setting up our queue parameters on the primary,
not only on the receiving side.

We announce discard support,
UNLESS

 * we are connected to a peer that does not support TRIM
   on the DRBD protocol level.  Otherwise, it would either discard, or
   do a fallback to zero-out, depending on its backend and configuration.

 * our local backend does not support discards,
   or (discard_zeroes_data=0 AND discard_zeroes_if_aligned=no).

Signed-off-by: Philipp Reisner 
Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg 
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

drbd: when receiving P_TRIM, zero-out partial unaligned chunks

2016-06-14T03:43:05+00:00

We can avoid spurious data divergence caused by partially-ignored
discards on certain backends with discard_zeroes_data=0, if we
translate partial unaligned discard requests into explicit zero-out.

The relevant use case is LVM/DM thin.

If on different nodes, DRBD is backed by devices with differing
discard characteristics, discards may lead to data divergence
(old data or garbage left over on one backend, zeroes due to
unmapped areas on the other backend). Online verify would now
potentially report tons of spurious differences.

While probably harmless for most use cases (fstrim on a file system),
DRBD cannot have that, it would violate our promise to upper layers
that our data instances on the nodes are identical.

To be correct and play safe (make sure data is identical on both copies),
we would have to disable discard support, if our local backend (on a
Primary) does not support "discard_zeroes_data=true".

We'd also have to translate discards to explicit zero-out on the
receiving (typically: Secondary) side, unless the receiving side
supports "discard_zeroes_data=true".

Which both would allocate those blocks, instead of unmapping them,
in contrast with expectations.

LVM/DM thin does set discard_zeroes_data=0,
because it silently ignores discards to partial chunks.

We can work around this by checking the alignment first.
For unaligned (wrt. alignment and granularity) or too small discards,
we zero-out the initial (and/or) trailing unaligned partial chunks,
but discard all the aligned full chunks.

At least for LVM/DM thin, the result is effectively "discard_zeroes_data=1".

Arguably it should behave this way internally, by default,
and we'll try to make that happen.

But our workaround is still valid for already deployed setups,
and for other devices that may behave this way.

Setting discard-zeroes-if-aligned=yes will allow DRBD to use
discards, and to announce discard_zeroes_data=true, even on
backends that announce discard_zeroes_data=false.

Setting discard-zeroes-if-aligned=no will cause DRBD to always
fall-back to zero-out on the receiving side, and to not even
announce discard capabilities on the Primary, if the respective
backend announces discard_zeroes_data=false.

We used to ignore the discard_zeroes_data setting completely.
To not break established and expected behaviour, and suddenly
cause fstrim on thin-provisioned LVs to run out-of-space,
instead of freeing up space, the default value is "yes".

Signed-off-by: Philipp Reisner 
Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg 
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe