Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:00:57 +0200 | From | Niklas Cassel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] mtd: nand: increase ready wait timeout and report timeouts |
| |
On 09/16/2015 01:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > From: Alex Smith <alex.smith@imgtec.com> > > If nand_wait_ready() times out, this is silently ignored, and its > caller will then proceed to read from/write to the chip before it is > ready. This can potentially result in corruption with no indication as > to why. > > While a 20ms timeout seems like it should be plenty enough, certain > behaviour can cause it to timeout much earlier than expected. The > situation which prompted this change was that CPU 0, which is > responsible for updating jiffies, was holding interrupts disabled > for a fairly long time while writing to the console during a printk, > causing several jiffies updates to be delayed. If CPU 1 happens to > enter the timeout loop in nand_wait_ready() just before CPU 0 re- > enables interrupts and updates jiffies, CPU 1 will immediately time > out when the delayed jiffies updates are made. The result of this is > that nand_wait_ready() actually waits less time than the NAND chip > would normally take to be ready, and then read_page() proceeds to > read out bad data from the chip. > > The situation described above may seem unlikely, but in fact it can be > reproduced almost every boot on the MIPS Creator Ci20. > > Therefore, this patch increases the timeout to 400ms. This should be > enough to cover cases where jiffies updates get delayed. In nand_wait() > the timeout was previously chosen based on whether erasing or > programming. This is changed to be 400ms unconditionally as well to > avoid similar problems there. nand_wait() is also slightly refactored > to be consistent with nand_wait{,_status}_ready(). These changes should > have no effect during normal operation. > > Debugging this was made more difficult by the misleading comment above > nand_wait_ready() stating "The timeout is caught later" - no timeout was > ever reported, leading me away from the real source of the problem. > Therefore, a pr_warn() is added when a timeout does occur so that it is > easier to pinpoint similar problems in future. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Smith <alex.smith@imgtec.com> > Cc: Zubair Lutfullah Kakakhel <Zubair.Kakakhel@imgtec.com> > Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> > Cc: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> > Cc: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@axis.com> > Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@axis.com>
| |