The existing mechanism of reserving PEBs for bad PEB handling has two
flaws:
- It is calculated as a percentage of good PEBs instead of total PEBs.
- There's no limit on the amount of PEBs UBI reserves for future bad
eraseblock handling.
This patch changes the mechanism to overcome these flaws.
The desired level of PEBs reserved for bad PEB handling (beb_rsvd_level)
is set to the maximum expected bad eraseblocks (bad_peb_limit) minus the
existing number of bad eraseblocks (bad_peb_count).
The actual amount of PEBs reserved for bad PEB handling is usually set
to the desired level (but in some circumstances may be lower than the
desired level, e.g. when attaching to a device that has too few
available PEBs to satisfy the desired level).
In the case where the device has too many bad PEBs (above the expected
limit), then the desired level, and the actual amount of PEBs reserved
are set to zero. No PEBs will be set aside for future bad eraseblock
handling - even if some PEBs are made available (e.g. by shrinking a
volume).
If another PEB goes bad, and there are available PEBs, then the
eraseblock will be marked bad (consuming one available PEB). But if
there are no available PEBs, ubi will go into readonly mode.
Signed-off-by: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
Currently, there are several locations where an attempt to reserve more
PEBs for bad PEB handling is made, with the same code being duplicated.
Harmonize it by introducing 'ubi_update_reserved()'.
Also, improve the debug message issued, making it more descriptive.
Artem: amended the patch a little.
Signed-off-by: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
The function name within the comment was not aligned with the actual
function name.
Signed-off-by: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
This patch turns static function 'check_pattern()' into a non-static
'ubi_check_pattern()'. This is just a preparation for the chages which
are coming in the next patches.
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
UBI already checks that @min io size is the power of 2 at io_init.
It is save to use bit operations then.
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
Pass volume description object to the EBA function which makes
more sense, and EBA function do not have to find the volume
description object by volume ID.
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
UBI allocates temporary buffers of PEB size, which may be 256KiB.
Use vmalloc instead of kmalloc for such big temporary buffers.
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
UBI (Latin: "where?") manages multiple logical volumes on a single
flash device, specifically supporting NAND flash devices. UBI provides
a flexible partitioning concept which still allows for wear-levelling
across the whole flash device.
In a sense, UBI may be compared to the Logical Volume Manager
(LVM). Whereas LVM maps logical sector numbers to physical HDD sector
numbers, UBI maps logical eraseblocks to physical eraseblocks.
More information may be found at
http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/doc/ubi.html
Partitioning/Re-partitioning
An UBI volume occupies a certain number of erase blocks. This is
limited by a configured maximum volume size, which could also be
viewed as the partition size. Each individual UBI volume's size can
be changed independently of the other UBI volumes, provided that the
sum of all volume sizes doesn't exceed a certain limit.
UBI supports dynamic volumes and static volumes. Static volumes are
read-only and their contents are protected by CRC check sums.
Bad eraseblocks handling
UBI transparently handles bad eraseblocks. When a physical
eraseblock becomes bad, it is substituted by a good physical
eraseblock, and the user does not even notice this.
Scrubbing
On a NAND flash bit flips can occur on any write operation,
sometimes also on read. If bit flips persist on the device, at first
they can still be corrected by ECC, but once they accumulate,
correction will become impossible. Thus it is best to actively scrub
the affected eraseblock, by first copying it to a free eraseblock
and then erasing the original. The UBI layer performs this type of
scrubbing under the covers, transparently to the UBI volume users.
Erase Counts
UBI maintains an erase count header per eraseblock. This frees
higher-level layers (like file systems) from doing this and allows
for centralized erase count management instead. The erase counts are
used by the wear-levelling algorithm in the UBI layer. The algorithm
itself is exchangeable.
Booting from NAND
For booting directly from NAND flash the hardware must at least be
capable of fetching and executing a small portion of the NAND
flash. Some NAND flash controllers have this kind of support. They
usually limit the window to a few kilobytes in erase block 0. This
"initial program loader" (IPL) must then contain sufficient logic to
load and execute the next boot phase.
Due to bad eraseblocks, which may be randomly scattered over the
flash device, it is problematic to store the "secondary program
loader" (SPL) statically. Also, due to bit-flips it may become
corrupted over time. UBI allows to solve this problem gracefully by
storing the SPL in a small static UBI volume.
UBI volumes vs. static partitions
UBI volumes are still very similar to static MTD partitions:
* both consist of eraseblocks (logical eraseblocks in case of UBI
volumes, and physical eraseblocks in case of static partitions;
* both support three basic operations - read, write, erase.
But UBI volumes have the following advantages over traditional
static MTD partitions:
* there are no eraseblock wear-leveling constraints in case of UBI
volumes, so the user should not care about this;
* there are no bit-flips and bad eraseblocks in case of UBI volumes.
So, UBI volumes may be considered as flash devices with relaxed
restrictions.
Where can it be found?
Documentation, kernel code and applications can be found in the MTD
gits.
What are the applications for?
The applications help to create binary flash images for two purposes: pfi
files (partial flash images) for in-system update of UBI volumes, and plain
binary images, with or without OOB data in case of NAND, for a manufacturing
step. Furthermore some tools are/and will be created that allow flash content
analysis after a system has crashed..
Who did UBI?
The original ideas, where UBI is based on, were developed by Andreas
Arnez, Frank Haverkamp and Thomas Gleixner. Josh W. Boyer and some others
were involved too. The implementation of the kernel layer was done by Artem
B. Bityutskiy. The user-space applications and tools were written by Oliver
Lohmann with contributions from Frank Haverkamp, Andreas Arnez, and Artem.
Joern Engel contributed a patch which modifies JFFS2 so that it can be run on
a UBI volume. Thomas Gleixner did modifications to the NAND layer. Alexander
Schmidt made some testing work as well as core functionality improvements.
Signed-off-by: Artem B. Bityutskiy <dedekind@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Frank Haverkamp <haver@vnet.ibm.com>
Artem Bityutskiy
Shmulik Ladkani
Brian Norris
Artem Bityutskiy
Kyungmin Park
Artem B. Bityutskiy