From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>,
Ricard Wanderlof <ricard.wanderlof@axis.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Steve deRosier <derosier@gmail.com>, Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com>,
"linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar>,
Huang Shijie <shijie8@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: default bitflip-reporting threshold to 75% of correction strength
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:50:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150210145030.5987fa63@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150121094257.6c9d6214@bbrezillon>
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:42:57 +0100
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:22:57 -0800
> Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> >
> > > Regarding the read-retry code, it currently stops retrying reading the
> > > page once the page has been successfully retrieved (or in other terms
> > > all bitflips have been fixed). But it might stop to soon, because by
> > > changing the bit level threshold (in other term retrying one more time)
> > > it might successfully read the page with less bitflips than the
> > > previous attempt (these are just supposition, I haven't tested it yet).
> > > If we can achieve that we could retry until we reach something below
> > > the bitflips threshold value, and if we fail to find any, just consider
> > > the lower number of bitflips found during those read-retry operations.
> >
> > I believe I suggested scenarios like this to some flash vendors when
> > speaking to reps in person, but they didn't seem to consider that
> > likely. I think they were implying that there would be only one read
> > retry mode that gives a reasonable result. I'm not sure if they were
> > really the experts on that particular topic, though, or if they were
> > just giving me an answer to make me happy.
>
> Okay, good to know. I'll try to do some more testing to verify that.
I did some more test on my cubietruck, trying other read-retry if the
threshold limit is reached (here is the code [1]), and it seems that
better read-retry mode are found in most cases (actually in all the
cases I encountered: see those traces [2]).
Note that I configured the bitflips_threshold to 3/4 of the
ecc-strength (exactly what you're doing in this patch).
Given these results I really think we should consider testing other
'read modes' if the succeeding one exceed the threshold value.
Best Regards,
Boris
[1]http://code.bulix.org/lvcs9x-87859
[2]http://code.bulix.org/xii8nw-87860
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-10 13:51 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
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 [this message]
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=20150210145030.5987fa63@bbrezillon \
--to=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=derosier@gmail.com \
--cc=ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar \
--cc=josh.wu@atmel.com \
--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