From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
To: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar>
Cc: Steve deRosier <derosier@gmail.com>,
"linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
Ricard Wanderlof <ricard.wanderlof@axis.com>,
Huang Shijie <shijie8@gmail.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Subject: Re: NAND ECC capabilities
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:09:16 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150108190916.GT9759@ld-irv-0074> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54AEB38D.4030403@vanguardiasur.com.ar>
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 01:42:53PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On 01/08/2015 05:32 AM, Ricard Wanderlof wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jan 2015, Steve deRosier wrote:
> >> Is my general understanding correct?
> >
> > I'd say yes, but the ECC threshold should be per 512 byte ECC block (which
> > seems to be the correct term rather than 'sector'), rather than per page.
> > Are you sure that the threshold is set to 4 (see
> > /sys/devices/virtual/mtd/mtd<n>/bitflip_threshold )?
> >
> > Normally the threshold is set below the ECC correction capability, so that
> > bit scrubbing has a chance to occur before the bits rot too far. Say you
> > have the threshold set at 4 bits, and you have 3 bits that have flipped.
> > If another bit flips, the block would be scrubbed, but say that two bits
> > flipped before you read the data the next time. You would have lost your
> > chance of recovery, so it makes sense to have the threshold lower than the
> > ECC capability. I would say 3/4 of the ECC capability would be a
> > reasonable value.
> >
>
> This makes a lot of sense. However, do we have any way of telling if the
> bitflips where produced on the same ECC sector?
>
> From a cursory look to the code, I'd say there's no such feature with
> the current MTD/NAND design. So, if an mtd_read reports 3 bitflips you
> have no way of telling they happened on the same sector or not, so you
> can't implement your idea.
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you or if you are misunderstanding
the code. Please review Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-mtd for
the 'bitflip_threshold' description. We only deal with the max # of
bitflips per sector (or block, or whatever you want to call it). No
ECC-related concept is handled on a per-page basis.
So I believe Ricard is accurately describing the current reality, not
"his idea."
Side note: I wonder if we want to change the nand_base defaults so
bitflip_threshold == 3/4 * ecc_strength
rather than
bitflip_threshold == ecc_strength
See in nand_scan_tail():
if (!mtd->bitflip_threshold)
mtd->bitflip_threshold = mtd->ecc_strength;
Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-08 19:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-08 3:10 NAND ECC capabilities Steve deRosier
2015-01-08 4:17 ` Ezequiel Garcia
2015-01-08 6:22 ` Steve deRosier
[not found] ` <0D23F1ECC880A74392D56535BCADD73526C0EA9A@NTXBOIMBX03.micron.com>
2015-01-08 17:09 ` Steve deRosier
2015-01-08 18:57 ` Brian Norris
2015-01-08 8:32 ` Ricard Wanderlof
2015-01-08 16:42 ` Ezequiel Garcia
2015-01-08 17:26 ` Steve deRosier
2015-01-08 19:09 ` Brian Norris [this message]
2015-01-08 19:27 ` Ezequiel Garcia
2015-01-12 8:35 ` Josh Wu
2015-01-12 20:51 ` [PATCH] mtd: nand: default bitflip-reporting threshold to 75% of correction strength Brian Norris
2015-01-13 2:01 ` Huang Shijie
2015-01-13 2:38 ` Brian Norris
2015-01-13 2:56 ` Huang Shijie
2015-01-13 13:25 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-01-13 18:48 ` Brian Norris
2015-01-13 18:51 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-01-13 19:51 ` Brian Norris
2015-01-17 19:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-01-17 19:26 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-01-17 19:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-01-17 19:54 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-01-21 8:22 ` Brian Norris
2015-01-21 8:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-02-10 13:50 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-01-21 7:45 ` Brian Norris
2015-01-08 17:14 ` NAND ECC capabilities Steve deRosier
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=20150108190916.GT9759@ld-irv-0074 \
--to=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=derosier@gmail.com \
--cc=ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=ricard.wanderlof@axis.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=shijie8@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox