Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mtd: nand: use nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk in default ECC read functions

Andrea Scian
2015-08-04T07:02:43Z

Richard,

Il 03/08/2015 21:32, Richard Weinberger ha scritto:
> Am 03.08.2015 um 15:39 schrieb Andrea Scian:
>>>> I think I can find some time to do some performance tests on real hardware.
>>>> Can you please help me in finding:
>>>> - which benchmark to use (currently I'm using bonnie++ on UBIFS, maybe I
>>>> can you just mtd_speedtest)
>>>> - where to implement those read
>>>
>>> I think the test should be done at the UBI layer if we want to check
>>> the real impact of the additional read sequence, but given the answer I
>>> gave to your other question I'm not sure this is relevant anymore ;-).
>
> I'm not sure whether introducing a read-before-write check is the best solution.
> At least we need hard numbers for slow/old SLC NANDs too.

We can enable the feature only for MLC, AFAIK it has not been required
for old SLC ;-)

Anyway, maybe I can do some performance test if you point me to the
right userspace tool to use.
As I already say I'm using bonnie++ to stress the device, more from a
stability than from performance point of view.
I'm also used to run mtd_speedtest but this may be useless if we put
some code inside the upper layers.

> We has such checks already and got rid of them.
> commit 657f28f8811c92724db10d18bbbec70d540147d6
> Author: Huang Shijie <shijie8@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue Aug 14 22:38:45 2012 -0400
>
> mtd: kill MTD_NAND_VERIFY_WRITE
>
>
> Although the goal of 657f28f8 was something else.

Understood, thanks for point this out

>
> In general I don't think putting much MTD/ECC logic into UBI is the way to go.
> UBI is a layer above MTD and MTD should do as much as possible wrt. ECC.
>
>>>>
>>>> For the second point I think we can implement it a UBI or MTD level.
>>>> I think the former will allow us to easily schedule scrubbing and choose
>>>> another block to issue the write to. However I don't really know how to
>>>> implement it (I don't really know so much about the UBI code).
>
> Implementing this is not much work.
> I've done such hacks for various customers to hunt down hardware issues.
>
>>> I didn't check before suggesting that, but it seems that the UBI layer
>>> is already doing this check for you [1], so if you're using UBI/UBIFS
>>> you shouldn't worry about bitflips in erased pages: if there is any,
>>> and their presence impact the write result, they should be detected.
>>> AFAICT, the only thing that is not checked is whether the number of
>>> bitflips after a write exceed the bitflips threshold or not, and I
>>> guess this can be added.
>>
>> IIUC this is a runtime debug check
>>
>> if (!ubi_dbg_chk_io(ubi))
>> ....
>>
>> And thus is disabled by default.
>
> That's correct.

Thanks.
In your opinion, enabling chk_io is correct to rough estimate the
overhead or does it enable too much checks?

TIA,

--

Andrea SCIAN

DAVE Embedded Systems