* [PATCH 1/5] ubi: introduce ubi->bad_peb_limit
[not found] <1341389164-24409-1-git-send-email-shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
@ 2012-07-04 8:06 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2012-07-18 7:09 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-18 10:40 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-04 8:06 ` [PATCH 3/5] ubi: kill CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE Shmulik Ladkani
1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Shmulik Ladkani @ 2012-07-04 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Introduce 'ubi->bad_peb_limit', which specifies an upper limit of PEBs
ubi expects to go bad.
Currently, it is initialized to a fixed percentage of total PEBs in the
ubi device (configurable via CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT).
The 'bad_peb_limit' is intended to be used for calculating the amount of
PEBs ubi needs to reserve for bad eraseblock handling.
Signed-off-by: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
---
arch/arm/configs/sam9_l9260_defconfig | 1 +
drivers/mtd/ubi/Kconfig | 11 +++++++++++
drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi.h | 2 ++
4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/sam9_l9260_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/sam9_l9260_defconfig
index ecf2531..f6917c9 100644
--- a/arch/arm/configs/sam9_l9260_defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/configs/sam9_l9260_defconfig
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ CONFIG_MTD_NAND_ATMEL=y
CONFIG_MTD_NAND_PLATFORM=y
CONFIG_MTD_UBI=y
CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE=3
+CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT=3
CONFIG_MTD_UBI_GLUEBI=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/Kconfig b/drivers/mtd/ubi/Kconfig
index 738ee8d..8df256f 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/Kconfig
@@ -42,6 +42,17 @@ config MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE
eraseblocks (e.g. NOR flash), this value is ignored and nothing is
reserved. Leave the default value if unsure.
+config MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT
+ int "Percentage of maximum expected bad eraseblocks"
+ default 2
+ range 0 25
+ help
+ This option specifies the maximum bad eraseblocks UBI expects on the
+ ubi device (percents of total number of flash eraseblocks).
+ If the underlying flash does not admit of bad eraseblocks (e.g. NOR
+ flash), this value is ignored.
+ Leave the default value if unsure.
+
config MTD_UBI_GLUEBI
tristate "MTD devices emulation driver (gluebi)"
help
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c
index 2c5ed5c..62cc6ce 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c
@@ -607,8 +607,19 @@ static int io_init(struct ubi_device *ubi)
ubi->peb_count = mtd_div_by_eb(ubi->mtd->size, ubi->mtd);
ubi->flash_size = ubi->mtd->size;
- if (mtd_can_have_bb(ubi->mtd))
+ if (mtd_can_have_bb(ubi->mtd)) {
ubi->bad_allowed = 1;
+ if (CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT > 0) {
+ int percent = CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT;
+ int beb_limit;
+
+ beb_limit = mult_frac(ubi->peb_count, percent, 100);
+ /* round it up */
+ if (mult_frac(beb_limit, 100, percent) < ubi->peb_count)
+ beb_limit++;
+ ubi->bad_peb_limit = beb_limit;
+ }
+ }
if (ubi->mtd->type == MTD_NORFLASH) {
ubi_assert(ubi->mtd->writesize == 1);
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi.h b/drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi.h
index a1a81c9..b5217ef 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi.h
+++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi.h
@@ -363,6 +363,7 @@ struct ubi_wl_entry;
* @flash_size: underlying MTD device size (in bytes)
* @peb_count: count of physical eraseblocks on the MTD device
* @peb_size: physical eraseblock size
+ * @bad_peb_limit: top limit of expected bad physical eraseblocks
* @bad_peb_count: count of bad physical eraseblocks
* @good_peb_count: count of good physical eraseblocks
* @corr_peb_count: count of corrupted physical eraseblocks (preserved and not
@@ -410,6 +411,7 @@ struct ubi_device {
int avail_pebs;
int beb_rsvd_pebs;
int beb_rsvd_level;
+ int bad_peb_limit;
int autoresize_vol_id;
int vtbl_slots;
--
1.7.9
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/5] ubi: kill CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE
[not found] <1341389164-24409-1-git-send-email-shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
2012-07-04 8:06 ` [PATCH 1/5] ubi: introduce ubi->bad_peb_limit Shmulik Ladkani
@ 2012-07-04 8:06 ` Shmulik Ladkani
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Shmulik Ladkani @ 2012-07-04 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE and MIN_RESEVED_PEBS are no longer used,
since the amount of reserved eraseblocks for bad PEB handling is now
derived from 'ubi->bad_peb_limit' (ubi's maximum expected bad
eraseblocks).
Signed-off-by: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
---
arch/arm/configs/sam9_l9260_defconfig | 1 -
drivers/mtd/ubi/Kconfig | 15 ---------------
drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi.h | 3 ---
3 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/sam9_l9260_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/sam9_l9260_defconfig
index f6917c9..da276f9 100644
--- a/arch/arm/configs/sam9_l9260_defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/configs/sam9_l9260_defconfig
@@ -39,7 +39,6 @@ CONFIG_MTD_NAND=y
CONFIG_MTD_NAND_ATMEL=y
CONFIG_MTD_NAND_PLATFORM=y
CONFIG_MTD_UBI=y
-CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE=3
CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT=3
CONFIG_MTD_UBI_GLUEBI=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/Kconfig b/drivers/mtd/ubi/Kconfig
index 7eb91cb..145cda2 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/Kconfig
@@ -27,21 +27,6 @@ config MTD_UBI_WL_THRESHOLD
life-cycle less than 10000, the threshold should be lessened (e.g.,
to 128 or 256, although it does not have to be power of 2).
-config MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE
- int "Percentage of reserved eraseblocks for bad eraseblocks handling"
- default 1
- range 0 25
- help
- If the MTD device admits of bad eraseblocks (e.g. NAND flash), UBI
- reserves some amount of physical eraseblocks to handle new bad
- eraseblocks. For example, if a flash physical eraseblock becomes bad,
- UBI uses these reserved physical eraseblocks to relocate the bad one.
- This option specifies how many physical eraseblocks will be reserved
- for bad eraseblock handling (percents of total number of good flash
- eraseblocks). If the underlying flash does not admit of bad
- eraseblocks (e.g. NOR flash), this value is ignored and nothing is
- reserved. Leave the default value if unsure.
-
config MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT
int "Percentage of maximum expected bad eraseblocks"
default 2
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi.h b/drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi.h
index b5217ef..80c394eb 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi.h
+++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi.h
@@ -59,9 +59,6 @@
#define ubi_err(fmt, ...) printk(KERN_ERR "UBI error: %s: " fmt "\n", \
__func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
-/* Lowest number PEBs reserved for bad PEB handling */
-#define MIN_RESEVED_PEBS 2
-
/* Background thread name pattern */
#define UBI_BGT_NAME_PATTERN "ubi_bgt%dd"
--
1.7.9
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/5] ubi: introduce ubi->bad_peb_limit
2012-07-04 8:06 ` [PATCH 1/5] ubi: introduce ubi->bad_peb_limit Shmulik Ladkani
@ 2012-07-18 7:09 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-18 10:40 ` Artem Bityutskiy
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Artem Bityutskiy @ 2012-07-18 7:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 11:06 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> Introduce 'ubi->bad_peb_limit', which specifies an upper limit of PEBs
> ubi expects to go bad.
> Currently, it is initialized to a fixed percentage of total PEBs in the
> ubi device (configurable via CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT).
>
> The 'bad_peb_limit' is intended to be used for calculating the amount of
> PEBs ubi needs to reserve for bad eraseblock handling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
Created branch "beb" and pushed this patch there with minor amendments
(see diff below). Let's use this branch in UBI tree for this work and
merge it as soon as it is ready.
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c
index c33e25b..dee90b7 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c
@@ -668,13 +668,12 @@ static int io_init(struct ubi_device *ubi)
ubi->bad_allowed = 1;
if (CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT > 0) {
int percent = CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT;
- int beb_limit;
+ int limit = mult_frac(ubi->peb_count, percent, 100);
- beb_limit = mult_frac(ubi->peb_count, percent, 100);
- /* round it up */
- if (mult_frac(beb_limit, 100, percent) < ubi->peb_count)
- beb_limit++;
- ubi->bad_peb_limit = beb_limit;
+ /* Round it up */
+ if (mult_frac(limit, 100, percent) < ubi->peb_count)
+ limit += 1;
+ ubi->bad_peb_limit = limit;
}
}
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120718/fff33c14/attachment-0001.sig>
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/5] ubi: introduce ubi->bad_peb_limit
2012-07-04 8:06 ` [PATCH 1/5] ubi: introduce ubi->bad_peb_limit Shmulik Ladkani
2012-07-18 7:09 ` Artem Bityutskiy
@ 2012-07-18 10:40 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-19 6:16 ` Shmulik Ladkani
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Artem Bityutskiy @ 2012-07-18 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 11:06 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> Introduce 'ubi->bad_peb_limit', which specifies an upper limit of PEBs
> ubi expects to go bad.
> Currently, it is initialized to a fixed percentage of total PEBs in the
> ubi device (configurable via CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT).
>
> The 'bad_peb_limit' is intended to be used for calculating the amount of
> PEBs ubi needs to reserve for bad eraseblock handling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/configs/sam9_l9260_defconfig | 1 +
I've also amended the Kconfig text a tiny bit and dropped the defconfig
changes - let's have them separately as a single patch at the end of the
series.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120718/544983b4/attachment.sig>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/5] ubi: introduce ubi->bad_peb_limit
2012-07-18 10:40 ` Artem Bityutskiy
@ 2012-07-19 6:16 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2012-07-30 13:00 ` Artem Bityutskiy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Shmulik Ladkani @ 2012-07-19 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:53 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've also amended the Kconfig text a tiny bit and dropped the defconfig
> changes - let's have them separately as a single patch at the end of the
> series.
Wouldn't having the defconfig change as the last patch break things for
those defconfigs that had explicitly set CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE
other than the default?
Meaning, if the one-before-last would be "kill CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE",
then those defconfigs that had _explicitly_ set a BEB_RESERVE value,
which do not YET set a BEB_LIMIT value, will have their BEB_LIMIT as
the default - but they actually meant a specific value other than the
default.
This is why I tried to:
- set the CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT in defconfigs as part of the commit
which introduces this config (copy same value as their RESERVE config)
- kill all CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE references from defconfigs as part
of the commit which kills it
Regards,
Shmulik
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/5] ubi: introduce ubi->bad_peb_limit
2012-07-19 6:16 ` Shmulik Ladkani
@ 2012-07-30 13:00 ` Artem Bityutskiy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Artem Bityutskiy @ 2012-07-30 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 09:16 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:53 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've also amended the Kconfig text a tiny bit and dropped the defconfig
> > changes - let's have them separately as a single patch at the end of the
> > series.
>
> Wouldn't having the defconfig change as the last patch break things for
> those defconfigs that had explicitly set CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE
> other than the default?
OK, fair enough, but let's have it as a 2 separate patches anyway. It is
not a big deal to first change the defconfig, and then actually add the
new option.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120730/a9d45a61/attachment.sig>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-07-30 13:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <1341389164-24409-1-git-send-email-shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
2012-07-04 8:06 ` [PATCH 1/5] ubi: introduce ubi->bad_peb_limit Shmulik Ladkani
2012-07-18 7:09 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-18 10:40 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-19 6:16 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2012-07-30 13:00 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-07-04 8:06 ` [PATCH 3/5] ubi: kill CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE Shmulik Ladkani
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).