[PATCH V4] mtd: gpmi: fix the bitflips for erased page
Brian Norris
computersforpeace at gmail.com
Fri Mar 7 22:32:38 EST 2014
+ Pekon
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:47:18PM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> We may meet the bitflips in reading an erased page(contains all 0xFF),
> this may causes the UBIFS corrupt, please see the log from Elie:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 3.831323] UBI warning: ubi_io_read: error -74 (ECC error) while reading 16384 bytes from PEB 443:245760, read only 16384 bytes, retry
> [ 3.845026] UBI warning: ubi_io_read: error -74 (ECC error) while reading 16384 bytes from PEB 443:245760, read only 16384 bytes, retry
> [ 3.858710] UBI warning: ubi_io_read: error -74 (ECC error) while reading 16384 bytes from PEB 443:245760, read only 16384 bytes, retry
> [ 3.872408] UBI error: ubi_io_read: error -74 (ECC error) while reading 16384 bytes from PEB 443:245760, read 16384 bytes
> ...
> [ 4.011529] UBIFS error (pid 36): ubifs_recover_leb: corrupt empty space LEB 27:237568, corruption starts at 9815
> [ 4.021897] UBIFS error (pid 36): ubifs_scanned_corruption: corruption at LEB 27:247383
> [ 4.030000] UBIFS error (pid 36): ubifs_scanned_corruption: first 6569 bytes from LEB 27:247383
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This patch does a check for the uncorrectable failure in the following steps:
>
> [0] set the threshold.
> The threshold is set based on the truth:
> "A single 0 bit will lead to gf_len(13 or 14) bits 0 after the BCH
> do the ECC."
>
> For the sake of safe, we will set the threshold with half the gf_len, and
> do not make it bigger the ECC strength.
This threshold looks wrong here.
> [1] count the bitflips of the current ECC chunk, assume it is N.
>
> [2] if the (N <= threshold) is true, we continue to read out the page with
> ECC disabled. and we count the bitflips again, assume it is N2.
> (We read out the whole page, not just a chunk, this makes the check
> more strictly, and make the code more simple.)
You can read a whole page, but the counting should not be against the
whole page; it should allow 'threshold' # of bitflips in each sector.
> [3] if the (N2 <= threshold) is true again, we can regard this is a erased
> page. This is because a real erased page is full of 0xFF(maybe also has
> several bitflips), while a page contains the 0xFF data will definitely
> has many bitflips in the ECC parity areas.
This threshold definitely shouldn't be based on gf_len; it should be
based on ECC strength.
> [4] if the [3] fails, we can regard this is a page filled with the '0xFF'
> data.
>
> Tested-by: Elie De Brauwer <eliedebrauwer at gmail.com>
> Reported-by: Elie De Brauwer <eliedebrauwer at gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie <b32955 at freescale.com>
> ---
> v3 --> v4:
> [1] update the mtd->ecc_stats.corrected when we detect an erased page.
> [2] add the shortcut when counting bitflips for non-ECC buffer.
> [3] add more comments about why read a whole page, but not a chunk.
>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c
> index e2f5820..6b6e707 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c
> @@ -958,6 +958,60 @@ static void block_mark_swapping(struct gpmi_nand_data *this,
> p[1] = (p[1] & mask) | (from_oob >> (8 - bit));
> }
>
> +static bool gpmi_erased_check(struct gpmi_nand_data *this,
> + unsigned char *data, unsigned int chunk, int page,
> + unsigned int *max_bitflips)
> +{
> + struct nand_chip *chip = &this->nand;
> + struct mtd_info *mtd = &this->mtd;
> + struct bch_geometry *geo = &this->bch_geometry;
> + int base = geo->ecc_chunk_size * chunk;
> + unsigned int flip_bits = 0, flip_bits_noecc = 0;
> + uint64_t *buf = (uint64_t *)this->data_buffer_dma;
> + unsigned int threshold;
> + int i;
> +
> + threshold = geo->gf_len / 2;
> + if (threshold > geo->ecc_strength)
> + threshold = geo->ecc_strength;
> +
> + /* Count bitflips */
> + for (i = 0; i < geo->ecc_chunk_size; i++) {
> + flip_bits += hweight8(~data[base + i]);
> + if (flip_bits > threshold)
> + return false;
> + }
^^^ This is the only part that's unique to this patch, I think, but it's
not really special to GPMI. And it's not correct, either. Suppose I have
a high ECC strength flash (20-bit correction?) but gf_len is 14. Then
threshold == 7. Now, if we see 10 bitflips in an erased page, we will
return false here, saying this page was not erased. But 10 is easily
within the ECC spec for this flash. That's a problem, no?
So this check should be based on the ECC strength. But is this a good
optimization in the first place? I think it could be thrown out for
simplicity in the generic case (e.g., in my sample pasted below).
> +
> + /*
> + * Read out the whole page with ECC disabled, and check it again,
> + * This is more strict then just read out a chunk, and it makes
> + * the code more simple.
> + */
> + chip->cmdfunc(mtd, NAND_CMD_READ0, 0, page);
> + chip->read_buf(mtd, (uint8_t *)buf, mtd->writesize);
> +
> + /* Count the bitflips for the no ECC buffer */
> + for (i = 0; i < mtd->writesize / 8; i++) {
> + flip_bits_noecc += hweight64(~buf[i]);
> + if (flip_bits_noecc > threshold)
> + return false;
> + }
^^^ this loop should be broken up into sectors, so that you actually
count max_bitflips per sector, not for the whole page.
> +
> + /* Tell the upper layer the bitflips we corrected. */
> + mtd->ecc_stats.corrected += flip_bits;
> + *max_bitflips = max_t(unsigned int, *max_bitflips, flip_bits);
This is wrong. You don't want to use the existing *max_bitflips value
from the previous read (remember, you're re-reading the data). You
should be doing a max() over each sector in the raw page, as mentioned
above.
> +
> + /*
> + * The geo->payload_size maybe not equal to the page size
> + * when the Subpage-Read is enabled.
> + */
> + memset(data, 0xff, geo->payload_size);
> +
> + dev_dbg(this->dev, "The page(%d) is an erased page(%d,%d,%d,%d).\n",
> + page, chunk, threshold, flip_bits, flip_bits_noecc);
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static int gpmi_ecc_read_page(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip,
> uint8_t *buf, int oob_required, int page)
> {
> @@ -1007,6 +1061,10 @@ static int gpmi_ecc_read_page(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip,
> continue;
>
> if (*status == STATUS_UNCORRECTABLE) {
> + if (gpmi_erased_check(this, payload_virt, i,
> + page, &max_bitflips))
> + break;
> +
> mtd->ecc_stats.failed++;
> continue;
> }
I'll post my alternate implementation below. I can work this up as a
real patch if you want. It could probably be optimized a bit to error
out quicker, but I don't think that is actually a performance concern
here.
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace at gmail.com>
/*
* Check a page to see if it is erased (w/ bitflips) after an uncorrectable ECC
* error
*
* On a real error, return a negative error code (-EBADMSG for ECC error), and
* buf will contain raw data.
* Otherwise, fill buf with 0xff and return the maximum number of
* bitflips-per-ECC-sector to the caller.
*
*/
static int nand_verify_erased_page(struct mtd_info *mtd,
struct nand_chip *chip, u32 *buf, u64 addr)
{
int i, oob_step, oob_nbits, data_nbits;
u8 *oob_buf = (u8 *) chip->oob_poi;
unsigned int max_bitflips = 0;
int page = addr >> chip->page_shift;
int ret;
oob_step = mtd->oobsize / chip->ecc.steps;
oob_nbits = oob_step << 3;
data_nbits = chip->ecc.size << 3;
/* read without ecc for verification */
ret = chip->ecc.read_page_raw(mtd, chip, (u8 *)buf, true, page);
if (ret)
return ret;
for (i = 0; i < chip->ecc.steps; i++, oob_buf += oob_step) {
unsigned int bitflips = 0;
bitflips += oob_nbits -
bitmap_weight((unsigned long *)oob_buf, oob_nbits);
bitflips += data_nbits -
bitmap_weight((unsigned long *)buf, data_nbits);
buf += chip->ecc.size;
addr += chip->ecc.size;
/* Too many bitflips */
if (bitflips > chip->ecc.strength)
return -EBADMSG;
max_bitflips = max(max_bitflips, bitflips);
}
pr_debug("correcting bitflips in erased page (max %u)\n",
max_bitflips);
return max_bitflips;
}
More information about the linux-mtd
mailing list