public inbox for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>
To: Mark Spieth <mspieth@digivation.com.au>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] UBI fixable bit-flip issue
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 17:22:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180817172246.45fa784c@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180817165322.61958720@bbrezillon>

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 16:53:22 +0200
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 00:33:25 +1000
> Mark Spieth <mspieth@digivation.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > >> I hope this description is clear enough.    
> > > Well, I think selecting the bitflip threshold properly is really
> > > important, simply because some NANDs (including SLC NANDs) are showing
> > > bitflips even on blocks that have a low EC. Check the NAND ECC
> > > requirements, and if it's something like 8bit/512bytes, I guess that's
> > > more or less expected (it all depends on how many bitflips you have in
> > > the faulty block). It's less likely on NANDs requiring 1bit/512bytes
> > > ECC, and if that happens on such NANDs, you may have a problem in the
> > > controller driver.    
> > 4 bits ECC per 512 bytes, from memory 28 bytes in OOB, using software 
> > ECC in the MTD driver.
> > As I said, I believe the better threshold is hiding the root cause. It 
> > is only a band-aid.  
> 
> What you describe will anyway happen sooner or later: if you're using
> almost al LEBs, and the remaining free ones are all impacted by the
> correctable bit-flip issue you'll have to use them anyway. So, yes,
> this is a band-aid, just like your solution is just improving things
> but not really solving the issue. This being said, if the blocks
> really show too many bitflips, they should be marked bad at some point,
> because during the scrubbing process we do write a pattern and check
> that we can read it back. I'll have to double check, but I think we're
> also checking for EUCLEAN and mark the block bad when that happens.

Hm, actually we're not torturing the source PEB when moving a LEB
because of bitflips (probably because it's expensive and tends to wear
the block even faster) :-/. The destination PEB is tortured if we fail
to read the VID header back, which is definitely not a guarantee that
other data are readable or do not contain too much bitflips.

There's definitely something to improve there.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-08-17 15:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-08-17  0:34 [RFC PATCH] UBI fixable bit-flip issue Mark Spieth
2018-08-17  8:25 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-08-17 14:33   ` Mark Spieth
2018-08-17 14:53     ` Boris Brezillon
2018-08-17 15:22       ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2018-08-20  0:40         ` Mark Spieth
2018-08-20  8:36           ` Boris Brezillon
2018-08-20 10:01             ` Arnaud Mouiche

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=20180817172246.45fa784c@bbrezillon \
    --to=boris.brezillon@bootlin.com \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mspieth@digivation.com.au \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    /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