From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143] helo=radon.swed.at) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1YlMqM-0001dA-AP for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:31:27 +0000 Message-ID: <5539486F.60407@nod.at> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 21:30:55 +0200 From: Richard Weinberger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Cartwright , Iwo Mergler Subject: Re: Adding subpage support to NAND driver -- backwards compatibility concerns References: <20150422172944.GA4134@bshelton-desktop> <20150423183957.GR27115@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com> In-Reply-To: <20150423183957.GR27115@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "dedekind1@gmail.com" , Ben Shelton , "xander.huff@ni.com" , "adrian.hunter@intel.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , "punnaiah.choudary.kalluri@xilinx.com" , "computersforpeace@gmail.com" , "dwmw2@infradead.org" List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Am 23.04.2015 um 20:39 schrieb Josh Cartwright: > +Richard, who, when not being trolled on IRC, has been working on > UBI(FS) stuff. Yeah, being on #kernelnewbeis is always "fun". ;-) > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:48:53PM +1000, Iwo Mergler wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 03:29:44 +1000 >> Ben Shelton wrote: >>> We'd like to upstream our patch, but my concern is that UBIFS behaves >>> differently when it knows that the flash device supports subpages. I >>> have a couple of questions related to that: >>> >>> - I know from experience that bad things happen when you use a kernel >>> without subpage support with an UBIFS filesystem that was formatted >>> with subpage support. Is it safe to do the opposite (kernel with >>> subpage support / UBIFS filesystem formatted without subpage >>> support)? >>> >>> - Assuming that it isn't safe, what's the best way to add subpage >>> support to this driver in an upstreamable way / without breaking >>> people? Would it be sufficient to add subpage support as a Kconfig >>> option that's disabled by default with a strongly-worded message >>> describing the consequences of enabling it? > [..] >> from what I understand, the only part of the UBI/UBIFS stack that >> uses / cares about subpages are the UBI EC and VID headers. > > Are the locations of both headers changed when subpage accesses are > supported? I was under the impression that EC was always at the > beginning of the page, with the VID headers at the next min IO boundary. > (So, only the location of the VID header would be changed). This is correct. Only the VID header should be changed. Using ubiattach'S --vid-hdr-offset you can tell UBI about subpages. >> If you have subpage access, the two headers will share a page, if not, >> they live in separate pages. With subpages, you half your UBI >> overhead. >> >> This affects the LEB size for UBIFS as well as the UBI header and data >> locations within the PEB, so the filesystems are incompatible. >> >> If you add subpage support to a system that previously had none, and >> presumably want to use the old file systems, you need to force the >> ubiattach command to use the page size as the VID header offset. > > Okay, well; I would expect that for some systems that are using UBIFS as > root, tweaking the commandline to add 'ubi.mtd=0,' would require a > bootloader change. > > Anyway, I think we're talking only about theoretical breakage here, so > it's reasonable to ask whether or not we should even care about this at > all. > >> Something like >> >> PAGESIZE=`cat /sys/class/mtd/mtd0/writesize` >> ubiattach /dev/ubi_ctrl -O $PAGESIZE ... >> >> Same applies to any ubiformat commands. >> >> This stops UBI from using the subpage capability. You also don't >> get the benefit of the lower overhead, of course. >> >> Traditionally, if someone changes the kernel config, breaking things >> is definitely expected consequences. So, making subpage support >> a default-off option for the driver has my vote. > > Is there no metadata in the UBI data structures in flash that indicate > the min IO boundary? Assuming no, is another option to, at the time of > attach, try both the min IO access size, and, if that doesn't work, try > the page size? Correct. UBI has no information about that. If you add subpage support to the driver I'd make it opt-in such that existing setups won't break. Thanks, //richard