[PATCH v6 1/3] ubi: Introduce block devices for UBI volumes

[Ezequiel Garcia]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:45:46PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 17:03 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > This commit introduces block device emulation on top of ubi volumes,
> > in the most featureless and skinniest way: read-only, uncached access.
> > 
> > Given UBI takes care of wear leveling and bad block management it's possible
> > to add a thin layer to enable block device access to UBI volumes.
> > This allows to use a block-oriented filesystem on a flash device.
> > 
> > As opposed to mtdblock, which uses a 1-LEB cache, we've chosen not to
> > implement any caching policy. The UBI block interface is meant to be
> > used in conjunction with regular block-oriented filesystems (primarily,
> > squashfs). These filesystems are better prepared to do their own caching,
> > rendering a block-level cache useless.
> 
> As I explain, I do not think any additional caching is needed for the
> R/O FS. Mtdblock supports writing in the most straight-forward way
> (read-modify-write entire LEB), and this is why it needs the 1LEB
> "cache" - it allows avoiding the read part _sometimes_ - for sequential
> writes. And only for sequential writes.
> 
> Just forget that cache.
> 

Agreed.

> > +config MTD_UBI_BLOCK
> > +	bool "Block device access to UBI volumes"
> 
> bool "Read-only block devices on top of UBI volumes"
> 

OK.

> > +	default n
> > +	help
> > +	   Since UBI already takes care of eraseblock wear leveling
> > +	   and bad block handling, it's possible to implement a block
> > +	   device on top of it and therefore mount regular filesystems
> > +	   (i.e. not flash-oriented, as ext4).
> > +	   In other words, this is a software flash translation layer.
> 
> I'd re-write it differently. "Since .. it is possible to implement"
> looks weird. It is already implemented bu this driver.
> 
> The customer for this text is the end user, who does not know much about
> UBI and what is possible. Just give him/her facts :-) Something more
> like this.
> 
> This option enables read-only UBI block devices support. UBI block
> devices will be layered on top of UBI volumes, which means that the UBI
> driver will transparently handle things like bad eraseblocks and
> bit-flips. You can put any file-system in on top of UBI volumes in
> read-only mode (e.g., ext4), but it is probably most practical for
> read-only file systems like squashfs.
> 

Looks much better.

> > +
> > +	   This can be particularly interesting to allow mounting a read-only
> > +	   filesystem, such as squashfs, on a NAND device.
> 
> "This can be particularly interesting" - may be just simpler phrase
> which just tells that the user can use UBI block devices with squashfs?
> 

OK.

> > +	   When selected, this feature will be built-in the ubi module
> 
> Well, I'd use "UBI driver" instead of "ubi module", since we do not know
> whether the users selected the module or compiled UBI into the kernel.
> 

OK.

> > +	   and block devices will be able to be created and removed using
> > +	   the userspace 'ubiblkvol' tool (provided mtd-utils).
> 
> > @@ -0,0 +1,660 @@
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (c) 2014 Ezequiel Garcia
> > + * Copyright (c) 2011 Free Electrons
> 
> If you copy-pasted _any_ code from UBI, do not forget to add original
> copyrights here too. Otherwise, this is fine.
> 

Hm... I think I took something from UBI and mtdblock. Not sure if I
"copy-pasted as-is", but I guess we can safely say it was "based on".
Let's re-check the code and put a comment there.

> > +/*
> > + * Block interface for UBI volumes
> > + *
> > + * A simple implementation to allow a block device interface on top
> > + * of a UBI volume. The implementation is provided by creating a static
> > + * 1-to-1 mapping between the block device and the UBI volume.
> 
> .. and the LEBs of the UBI volume, may be?
> 

Could be.. but I don't want people to get confused by that. There's no 1-1
mapping between *a* block sector and *a* LEB. Maybe the "1-1 mapping"
wording is what's confusing?

> > + * The addressed byte is obtained from the addressed block sector,
> > + * which is mapped linearly into the corresponding LEB:
> > + *
> > + *   leb number = addressed byte / leb size
> > + *
> > + * The current implementation support only read operation. Write-support
> > + * addition shouldn't be too hard and could be implemented in the future.
> > + * It was suggested to implement this using the already existent BLKROSET
> > + * block ioctl to turn it on and off, thus avoiding undesirable writes.
> 
> I do not think it is not hard. Decent write operation may be hard. By
> decent I mean something which would give you sane random write
> performance. Your implementation would basically read-erase-write entire
> LEB, with CRC calculation for the entire LEB data, right?
> 
> So I'd say just "possible", rather "shouldn't be too hard" :-)
> 

The proposed write support used ubi_leb_change() to write. It was
based on your proposal, many years ago:

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2008-January/020381.html

I think it's better to drop any mention to the write support.

> > + * Contrary to the MTD block interface implementation, there's no cache
> > + * involved. The reasons behind this choice is that the filesystems
> > + * that would be mounted on top of UBI blocks already provide caching and
> > + * are able to do it more efficiently.
> 
> I'd not mention MTD block here at all. And it's cache. It confuses more
> than gives a clue. Just tell that you do not implement any caching for
> the date in your driver.
> 

OK.

> > + * We may add a cache here, but it would be desirable to register a memory
> > + * shrinker to match the requirements of memory-constrained platforms.
> 
> You could provide your vision about a possible write implementation at
> the end of this comment, and there you could put your thoughts about the
> cache. Because the cache is only relevant for the write support, I
> believe.
> 

I think I'll just drop the cache and write notice.

> > + * This feature is compiled in the UBI core, and adds a new 'block'
> > + * parameter to allow early block interface creation. Runtime
> > + * block attach/detach for UBI volumes is provided through two
> > + * UBI ioctls: UBI_IOCVOLATTBLK and UBI_IOCVOLDETBLK.
> > + */
> 
> I hope more people would help reviewing the code :-)
> 

Ah, I just noticed I forgot to add:

  Tested-by: Willy Tarreau <w at 1wt.eu>
  Reviewed-by: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger at gmail.com>

who tested and reviewed previous versions of the UBI patch, and
I'm sure are reading this and will test and review this one ;-)
-- 
Ezequiel García, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com