From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: richard@nod.at, dwmw2@infradead.org, computersforpeace@gmail.com,
marek.vasut@gmail.com, cyrille.pitchen@atmel.com,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mark.marshall@omicronenergy.com, b44839@freescale.com,
prabhakar@freescale.com
Subject: Re: fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC?
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:27:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170420002748.5c76c9b9@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170419221507.GA24914@amd>
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:15:07 +0200
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > We have some problems with fsl_ifc_nand ... in the old kernels, but
> > > this one does not seem to be fixed in v4.11, either.
> > >
> > > UBIFS complains:
> > >
> > > UBIFS error (pid 931): ubifs_scan: corrupt empty space at LEB 282:252630
> > > UBIFS error (pid 931): ubifs_scanned_corruption: corruption at LEB 282:252630
> > > UBIFS error (pid 931): ubifs_scanned_corruption: first 1322 bytes from LEB 282:252630
> > > UBIFS error (pid 931): ubifs_scan: LEB 282 scanning failed
> > >
> > > Possible explanation is here:
> > >
> > > https://e2e.ti.com/support/dsp/davinci_digital_media_processors/f/716/t/289605
> > >
> > > # I see on the forum that this issue has been raised before - my
> > > # understanding is that the omap2 nand driver does not perform ECC
> > > # detection/correction on empty pages so when UBIFS checks the empty
> > > # space data and doesn't read all 0xFF then it fails and mounts
> > > # read-only. I didn't find any good solution - only a workaround to
> > > # remove the UBIFS check..
> > >
> > > So I checked fsl_ifc_nand.c in v4.11-rc, and yes, it seems to have the
> > > same problem:
> > >
> > > if (errors == 15) {
> > > /*
> > > * Uncorrectable error.
> > > * OK only if the whole page is blank.
> > > *
> > > * We disable ECCER reporting due to...
> > > * erratum IFC-A002770 -- so report it now if we
> > > * see an uncorrectable error in ECCSTAT.
> > > */
> > > if (!is_blank(mtd, bufnum))
> > > ctrl->nand_stat |=
> > > IFC_NAND_EVTER_STAT_ECCER;
> > > break;
> > > }
> > >
> > > is_blank() checks for all 0xff's, so single-bit 0xfe in the data will
> > > result in_blank() == 0 and uncorrectable error being signaled.
> > >
> > > Should the driver be modified somehow?
> >
> > Yep, nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() [1] is here to help you check this
> > case, unfortunately, it's not directly applicable here, because this
> > function takes regular pointers and not __iomem ones. You'll either
> > have to copy the data in an intermediate buffer before calling
> > nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(), or cast the SRAM region to a void
> > pointer (which is usually not a good idea). The last option would be to
> > open code nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(), but I'd really like to avoid
> > that (for maintainability concerns).
>
> Ok, thanks a lot for the pointer, that should be doable.
>
> Core of the code is:
>
> 1357 for (; len >= sizeof(long);
> 1358 len -= sizeof(long), bitmap += sizeof(long)) {
> 1359 weight = hweight_long(*((unsigned long
> *)bitmap));
> 1360 bitflips += BITS_PER_LONG - weight;
> 1361 if (unlikely(bitflips > bitflips_threshold))
> 1362 return -EBADMSG;
> 1363 }
>
> Someone clearly optimized this code (took care to do long accesses
> etc), but afaict hweight is quite a heavy operation:
>
> _GLOBAL(__arch_hweight32)
> BEGIN_FTR_SECTION
> b __sw_hweight32
> nop
> nop
> nop
> nop
> nop
> nop
> FTR_SECTION_ELSE
> BEGIN_FTR_SECTION_NESTED(51)
> PPC_POPCNTB(R3,R3)
> srdi r4,r3,16
> add r3,r4,r3
> srdi r4,r3,8
> add r3,r4,r3
> clrldi r3,r3,64-8
> blr
> FTR_SECTION_ELSE_NESTED(51)
> PPC_POPCNTW(R3,R3)
> clrldi r3,r3,64-8
> blr
> ALT_FTR_SECTION_END_NESTED_IFCLR(CPU_FTR_POPCNTD, 51)
> ALT_FTR_SECTION_END_IFCLR(CPU_FTR_POPCNTB)
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__arch_hweight32)
>
> Would it make sense to only do hweight if *bitmap != ~0ULL ? Would it
> make sense to only check for bitflips > bitflips_threshold each 128
> bytes or something like that?
I didn't go as far as you did and simply assumed hweight32/64() were
already optimized. Feel free to propose extra improvements.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-19 22:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-19 12:13 fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC? Pavel Machek
2017-04-19 21:18 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-04-19 22:15 ` Pavel Machek
2017-04-19 22:27 ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2017-04-20 11:40 ` Pavel Machek
2017-04-20 12:15 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-04-21 10:51 ` [PATCH] nand_base: optimize checking of erased buffers Pavel Machek
2017-05-17 11:27 ` Mason
2017-05-17 11:39 ` Mason
2017-05-17 11:52 ` Pavel Machek
2017-05-17 12:22 ` [PATCH] fsl_ifc_nand: fix handing of bit flips in erased nand Pavel Machek
2017-05-17 12:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-05-17 13:00 ` Pavel Machek
2017-05-17 13:25 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-05-17 20:03 ` [PATCH] mtd: nand: fsl_ifc: fix handing of bit flips in erased pages Pavel Machek
2017-05-31 20:59 ` [PATCHv2] " Pavel Machek
2017-05-31 22:59 ` Darwin Dingel
2017-06-01 1:09 ` Darwin Dingel
2017-06-01 13:12 ` Pavel Machek
2017-06-01 13:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-06-07 7:31 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-04-21 10:08 ` fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC? Pavel Machek
2017-04-21 10:12 ` Richard Weinberger
2017-04-21 12:04 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-04-21 13:37 ` Pavel Machek
2017-04-21 13:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-04-22 7:01 ` Pavel Machek
2017-04-22 10:40 ` [PATCH] tango_nand.c: fix ecc.stats_corrected in empty flash case Pavel Machek
2017-04-23 9:58 ` tango_nand: is logic right in error cases? (was Re: fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC?) Pavel Machek
2017-04-24 7:12 ` Boris Brezillon
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=20170420002748.5c76c9b9@bbrezillon \
--to=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=b44839@freescale.com \
--cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=cyrille.pitchen@atmel.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
--cc=mark.marshall@omicronenergy.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=prabhakar@freescale.com \
--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).