From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com>
Cc: wangle6@huawei.com, vigneshr@ti.com, richard@nod.at,
houtao1@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, zhangweimin12@huawei.com,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, stable@kernel.org,
yebin10@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mtd:fix cache_state to avoid writing to bad blocks repeatedly
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:52:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200330155222.20359293@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1585575925-84017-1-git-send-email-nixiaoming@huawei.com>
Hi Xiaoming,
Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com> wrote on Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:45:25
+0800:
> The function call process is as follows:
> mtd_blktrans_work()
> while (1)
> do_blktrans_request()
> mtdblock_writesect()
> do_cached_write()
> write_cached_data() /*if cache_state is STATE_DIRTY*/
> erase_write()
>
> write_cached_data() returns failure without modifying cache_state
> and cache_offset. So when do_cached_write() is called again,
> write_cached_data() will be called again to perform erase_write()
> on the same cache_offset.
>
> But if this cache_offset points to a bad block, erase_write() will
> always return -EIO. Writing to this mtdblk is equivalent to losing
> the current data, and repeatedly writing to the bad block.
>
> Repeatedly writing a bad block has no real benefits,
> but brings some negative effects:
> 1 Lost subsequent data
> 2 Loss of flash device life
> 3 erase_write() bad blocks are very time-consuming. For example:
> the function do_erase_oneblock() in chips/cfi_cmdset_0020.c or
> chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c may take more than 20 seconds to return
>
> Therefore, when erase_write() returns -EIO in write_cached_data(),
> clear cache_state to avoid writing to bad blocks repeatedly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Still missing:
* Fixes: tag
* Wrong title prefix
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com>
Cc: <richard@nod.at>, <vigneshr@ti.com>, <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
<linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<wangle6@huawei.com>, <zhangweimin12@huawei.com>,
<yebin10@huawei.com>, <houtao1@huawei.com>, <stable@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mtd:fix cache_state to avoid writing to bad blocks repeatedly
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:52:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200330155222.20359293@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1585575925-84017-1-git-send-email-nixiaoming@huawei.com>
Hi Xiaoming,
Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com> wrote on Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:45:25
+0800:
> The function call process is as follows:
> mtd_blktrans_work()
> while (1)
> do_blktrans_request()
> mtdblock_writesect()
> do_cached_write()
> write_cached_data() /*if cache_state is STATE_DIRTY*/
> erase_write()
>
> write_cached_data() returns failure without modifying cache_state
> and cache_offset. So when do_cached_write() is called again,
> write_cached_data() will be called again to perform erase_write()
> on the same cache_offset.
>
> But if this cache_offset points to a bad block, erase_write() will
> always return -EIO. Writing to this mtdblk is equivalent to losing
> the current data, and repeatedly writing to the bad block.
>
> Repeatedly writing a bad block has no real benefits,
> but brings some negative effects:
> 1 Lost subsequent data
> 2 Loss of flash device life
> 3 erase_write() bad blocks are very time-consuming. For example:
> the function do_erase_oneblock() in chips/cfi_cmdset_0020.c or
> chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c may take more than 20 seconds to return
>
> Therefore, when erase_write() returns -EIO in write_cached_data(),
> clear cache_state to avoid writing to bad blocks repeatedly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Still missing:
* Fixes: tag
* Wrong title prefix
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-30 13:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-30 13:45 [PATCH v3] mtd:fix cache_state to avoid writing to bad blocks repeatedly Xiaoming Ni
2020-03-30 13:45 ` Xiaoming Ni
2020-03-30 13:52 ` Miquel Raynal [this message]
2020-03-30 13:52 ` Miquel Raynal
2020-03-30 14:25 ` Xiaoming Ni
2020-03-30 14:25 ` Xiaoming Ni
2020-03-30 14:55 ` Miquel Raynal
2020-03-30 14:55 ` Miquel Raynal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200330155222.20359293@xps13 \
--to=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=houtao1@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=nixiaoming@huawei.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
--cc=wangle6@huawei.com \
--cc=yebin10@huawei.com \
--cc=zhangweimin12@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.