Re: [PATCH] md: do not use ++ in rcu_dereference() argument

[Sam Ravnborg]

> Comments?

Looks better but can still use a few improvements.
See below.

	Sam
> 
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
> 
> commit e4062735c8f7233923df5858ed20f1278f3ee669
> Author: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
> Date:   Mon Sep 6 14:10:08 2010 +1000
> 
>     md: tidy up device searches in read_balance.
>     
>     We have a pre-increment side-effect in the arg to a macro:
>       rcu_dereference
>     
>     This is poor form and triggers a warning.  Rather than just fix that,
>     take the opportunity to re-write the code it make it more readable.
>     
>     Reported-by: Kulikov Vasiliy <segooon@xxxxxxxxx>
>     Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> index ad83a4d..e29e13f 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> @@ -420,11 +420,13 @@ static void raid1_end_write_request(struct bio *bio, int error)
>  static int read_balance(conf_t *conf, r1bio_t *r1_bio)
>  {
>  	const sector_t this_sector = r1_bio->sector;
> -	int new_disk = conf->last_used, disk = new_disk;
> -	int wonly_disk = -1;
> +	int new_disk = -1;
> +	int start_disk;
> +	int i;
>  	const int sectors = r1_bio->sectors;
>  	sector_t new_distance, current_distance;
>  	mdk_rdev_t *rdev;
> +	int choose_first;

To increase readability the general recommendation is:
1) Sort variable definitions with the longest first.
2) Do not assing variables when they are defined, do that on a separate line
   below the variable definitions.
   With one empty line after variable definitions.

>  
>  	rcu_read_lock();
>  	/*
> @@ -435,54 +437,35 @@ static int read_balance(conf_t *conf, r1bio_t *r1_bio)
>   retry:
>  	if (conf->mddev->recovery_cp < MaxSector &&
>  	    (this_sector + sectors >= conf->next_resync)) {
> -		/* Choose the first operational device, for consistancy */
> -		new_disk = 0;
> -
> -		for (rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[new_disk].rdev);
> -		     r1_bio->bios[new_disk] == IO_BLOCKED ||
> -		     !rdev || !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags)
> -			     || test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags);
> -		     rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[++new_disk].rdev)) {
> -
> -			if (rdev && test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) &&
> -				r1_bio->bios[new_disk] != IO_BLOCKED)
> -				wonly_disk = new_disk;
> -
> -			if (new_disk == conf->raid_disks - 1) {
> -				new_disk = wonly_disk;
> -				break;
> -			}
> -		}
> -		goto rb_out;
> +		choose_first = 1;
> +		start_disk = 0;
> +	} else {
> +		choose_first = 0;
> +		start_disk = conf->last_used;
>  	}
>  
> -
>  	/* make sure the disk is operational */
> -	for (rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[new_disk].rdev);
> -	     r1_bio->bios[new_disk] == IO_BLOCKED ||
> -	     !rdev || !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) ||
> -		     test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags);
> -	     rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[new_disk].rdev)) {
> -
> -		if (rdev && test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) &&
> -		    r1_bio->bios[new_disk] != IO_BLOCKED)
> -			wonly_disk = new_disk;
> -
> -		if (new_disk <= 0)
> -			new_disk = conf->raid_disks;
> -		new_disk--;
> -		if (new_disk == disk) {
> -			new_disk = wonly_disk;
> -			break;
> +	for (i = 0 ; i < conf->raid_disks ; i++) {
> +		int disk = start_disk + i;
> +		if (disk >= conf->raid_disks)
> +			disk -= conf->raid_disks;
1) Please comment on the purpose of the for loop
2) See comments above aboyt variable definitions

> +
> +		if (r1_bio->bios[disk] == IO_BLOCKED
> +		    || !(rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[disk].rdev))
> +		    || !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags))
The rather complex expression - which includes a well hidden assignment -
is repeated a few lines later.
Please use a helper function and do not use such hidden assignments.


> +			continue;
> +
> +		if (test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags)) {
> +			new_disk = disk;
> +			continue;
>  		}
> +		new_disk = disk;
> +		break;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -491,20 +474,20 @@ static int read_balance(conf_t *conf, r1bio_t *r1_bio)
>  	if (this_sector == conf->mirrors[new_disk].head_position)
>  		goto rb_out;
>  
> -	current_distance = abs(this_sector - conf->mirrors[disk].head_position);
> +	current_distance = abs(this_sector 
> +			       - conf->mirrors[new_disk].head_position);
>  
> -	/* Find the disk whose head is closest */
> +	/* look for a better disk - i.e. head is closer */
> +	start_disk = new_disk;
> +	for (i = 1; i < conf->raid_disks; i++) {
> +		int disk = start_disk + 1;
> +		if (disk >= conf->raid_disks)
> +			disk -= conf->raid_disks;
See comments about for loop above.
I also cannot see why we suddenly start with 1 where the other
almost identical for loop starts with 0?
If I wonder then someone else will wonder too => comment please.

>  
> -	do {
> -		if (disk <= 0)
> -			disk = conf->raid_disks;
> -		disk--;
> -
> -		rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[disk].rdev);
> -
> -		if (!rdev || r1_bio->bios[disk] == IO_BLOCKED ||
> -		    !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) ||
> -		    test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags))
> +		if (r1_bio->bios[disk] == IO_BLOCKED
> +		    || !(rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[disk].rdev))
> +		    || !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags)
> +		    || test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags))
>  			continue;
Here the complex expression is repeated - at least almost identical.

>  
>  		if (!atomic_read(&rdev->nr_pending)) {
> @@ -516,11 +499,9 @@ static int read_balance(conf_t *conf, r1bio_t *r1_bio)
>  			current_distance = new_distance;
>  			new_disk = disk;
>  		}
> -	} while (disk != conf->last_used);
> +	}
>  
>   rb_out:
> -
> -
>  	if (new_disk >= 0) {
>  		rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[new_disk].rdev);
>  		if (!rdev)
> 

	Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/