From: nick <xerofoify@gmail.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dedekind1@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] UBI: Implement bitrot checking
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 23:36:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <552B39D8.6060308@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <552AE4E0.1010605@nod.at>
On 2015-04-12 05:34 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> >> While I agree that consuming memory is not very nice I don't think that 125KiB
>>> >> is a big deal.
>> >
>> > Hm, a few weeks ago, when I suggested to store information about PEBs in
>> > order to better choose the next block to be checked for bitrot, one of
>> > your argument to reject that approach was the memory consumption of
>> > such a design.
>> > In my case the only thing I needed was the following structure (one
>> > instance per PEB):
>> >
>> > struct ubi_peb_statistics {
>> > struct list_head node;
>> > int pnum;
>> > int bitflips;
>> > int last_full_read; /* in seconds */
>> > int last_partial_write; /* in seconds */
>> > };
>> >
>> > which is 24 bytes large.
>> >
>> > I definitely understand the memory consumption argument, but that's not
>> > something you can change depending on who's proposing the solution :-).
> Yeah, but this structure remains in memory forever, right?
> In the bitrot case we allocate the memory only temporary.
>
> That said, my arguments are not perfect nor irreversible,
> it can happen that I mess up or was simply wrong.
> Just beat me down with my own arguments when I deserve it.
>
> Thanks,
> //richard
Richard and others,
This seems to be like the way we are handling page tables in the kernel. Further more due
to this if this is overall a good idea otherwise, I would recommend looking into the ratio
of storing the structure as a percent of overall memory on various systems to see if that
much memory is using storing the PEBs this way. Generally if it's over 2% of total memory
I would recommend finding a different solution, on the high end page structures take 1.5%
of overall memory on the high end for all systems I am currently aware of. Another area to
compare for doing something like is the driver core or slabs that need to be there for a
useable system i.e. the one for task_structs and therefore are always in kernel memory.
Just a option for a MTD newcomer,
Nick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-13 3:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-29 12:13 UBI: Bitrot checking Richard Weinberger
2015-03-29 12:13 ` [PATCH 1/4] UBI: Introduce ubi_schedule_fm_work() Richard Weinberger
2015-03-29 12:13 ` [PATCH 2/4] UBI: Introduce prepare_erase_work() Richard Weinberger
2015-03-29 12:13 ` [PATCH 3/4] UBI: Introduce in_pq() Richard Weinberger
2015-03-29 12:13 ` [PATCH 4/4] UBI: Implement bitrot checking Richard Weinberger
2015-04-02 17:34 ` Andrea Scian
2015-04-02 17:54 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-02 19:19 ` Andrea Scian
2015-04-08 10:34 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-08 21:02 ` Andrea Scian
2015-04-08 11:48 ` David Oberhollenzer
2015-04-12 14:12 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-04-12 16:09 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-12 16:43 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-04-12 16:55 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-12 20:42 ` [PATCH 4/4] UBI: Implement bitrot checking (linux-mtd Digest, Vol 145, Issue 24) Andrea Scian
2015-04-12 21:01 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-12 21:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-04-12 21:37 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-12 21:33 ` Andrea Scian
2015-04-12 21:42 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-13 17:17 ` linux-mtd digest emails (was Re: [PATCH 4/4] UBI: Implement bitrot checking) Brian Norris
2015-04-12 15:14 ` [PATCH 4/4] UBI: Implement bitrot checking Boris Brezillon
2015-04-12 16:14 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-12 16:31 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-04-12 16:32 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-12 17:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-04-12 17:09 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-12 19:20 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-04-12 19:53 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-12 21:24 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-04-12 21:34 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-13 3:36 ` nick [this message]
2015-04-12 17:36 ` Richard Weinberger
[not found] <mailman.40253.1428858576.22890.linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
[not found] <mailman.38750.1427638218.22890.linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
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=552B39D8.6060308@gmail.com \
--to=xerofoify@gmail.com \
--cc=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).