This message generated a parse failure. Raw output follows here. Please use 'back' to navigate. From devnull@lkml.org Tue Apr 23 12:53:23 2024 Delivery-date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:17:20 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751864AbWB1QQm (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:16:42 -0500 Received: from odyssey.analogic.com ([204.178.40.5]:38150 "EHLO odyssey.analogic.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751859AbWB1QQl convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:16:41 -0500 Received: from chaos.analogic.com ([10.112.50.11]) by phoenix.analogic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:16:31 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Received: from chaos.analogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chaos.analogic.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k1SGGVsj004507; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:16:31 -0500 Received: (from linux-os@localhost) by chaos.analogic.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id k1SGGUQf004506; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:16:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20060228151856.GB27601@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2006 16:16:31.0176 (UTC) FILETIME=[55EEB480:01C63C82] content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: o_sync in vfat driver Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:16:30 -0500 Message-Id: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: o_sync in vfat driver Thread-Index: AcY8glX4UK64gQRDQQmiBr6QD/eIgw== References: <20060227132848.GA27601@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <1141048228.2992.106.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1141049176.18855.4.camel@imp.csi.cam.ac.uk> <1141050437.2992.111.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1141051305.18855.21.camel@ From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" To: "Lennart Sorensen" Cc: , Reply-To: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 08:10:44AM -0500, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: >> >> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 col-pepper@piments.com wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:32:07 +0100, linux-os (Dick Johnson) >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Flash does not get zeroed to be written! It gets erased, which sets all >>>> the bits to '1', i.e., all bytes to 0xff. >>> >>> Thanks for the correction, but that does not change the discussion. >>> >>>> Further, the designers of >>>> flash disks are not stupid as you assume. The direct access occurs >>>> to static RAM (read/write stuff). >>> >>> I'm not assuming anything . Some hardware has been killed by this issue. >>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/13/144 >> >> No. That hardware was not killed by that issue. The writer, or another >> who had encountered the same issue, eventually repartitioned and >> reformatted the device. The partition table had gotten corrupted by >> some experiments and the writer assumed that the device was broken. >> It wasn't. >> >> Also, if you read other elements in this thread, you would have >> learned about something that has become somewhat of a red herring. >> >> It takes about a second to erase a 64k physical sector. This is >> a required operation before it is written. Since the projected >> life of these new devices is about 5 to 10 million such cycles, >> (older NAND flash used in modems was only 100-200k) the writer >> would have to be running that "brand new device" for at least >> 5 million seconds. Let's see: > > How come I can write to my compact flash at about 2M/s if you claim it > takes 1s to erase a 64k sector? Somehow I think your number is much too > high. Or it can do multiple erases at the same time. > > Also the 5 to 10 million is a lot higher than the numbers the makers of > the compact flash cards I use claim. > Here is an instrumented erase function on a driver that rewrites the first sector of a BIOS ROM. Unlike the Flash DISKS, the BIOS ROM has no buffering in static RAM so you can gustimate the actual time to erase............ //-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= // // This erases a page and waits for the erasure to complete. It // returns false if it failed. // static int erase(void *bios, int page) { int era; flags_t flags; jiffie_t ticks, start; spin_lock_irqsave(&info->lock, flags); erase_page(bios, page); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&info->lock, flags); start = jiffies; ticks = jiffies + (ERA_TIME * HZ); era = 0x00; while(time_before(jiffies, ticks)) { if((era = check_erase(bios, page))) break; if(signal_pending(current)) break; set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); schedule_timeout(1); } set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); printk("They don't believe... %d\n", (int) (jiffies - start)); return era; } [SNIPPED...] On the system I rewrite a BIOS sector on, jiffies is 1024 ticks/second. parport: PnPBIOS parport detected. parport0: PC-style at 0x378, irq 7 [PCSPP,TRISTATE] lp0: using parport0 (interrupt-driven). lp0: console ready device eth0 entered promiscuous mode device eth0 left promiscuous mode device eth0 entered promiscuous mode device eth0 left promiscuous mode Analogic-BiosDev : Initialization complete They don't believe... 1004 Now, the wait for erase always sleeps for at least a timer-tick (about a milisecond) so this may take longer than the physical erase, but not much longer. The erase function is: #-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= # # This erases the NVRAM page (block). It doesn't wait for completion. # Each block is 64k in length. # M29W040B chip # .section .text erase_page: pushl %ebx movl BUF(%esp), %ebx # Address of the chip movl DAT(%esp), %ecx # The page andl $0x07, %ecx # Max pages shll $0x10, %ecx # Times 64k movb $0xf0, (%ebx) # Reset movb $0xaa, 0x555(%ebx) movb $0x55, 0x2aa(%ebx) movb $0x80, 0x555(%ebx) movb $0xaa, 0x555(%ebx) movb $0x55, 0x2aa(%ebx) movb $0x30, (%ecx,%ebx) popl %ebx ret .size erase_page,.-erase_page .type erase_page,@function .global erase_page And the check-erase function is this: #-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= # # This reads the whole M29W040B page, looking for all 0xffff words. # It returns non-zero if it has been erased and zero otherwise. # check_erase: pushl %edi movl BUF(%esp), %edi # Point to buffer movl DAT(%esp), %eax # 64k page andl $0x07, %eax # Max pages possible shll $0x10, %eax # Times 64k addl %eax, %edi # Offset to start cld movl $0x8000, %ecx # Number of words to check movl $-1, %eax # What to look for repz scasw # Look for all 0xffff jz 1f # All erased incl %eax # -1 becomes zero 1: popl %edi ret .size check_erase,.-check_erase .type check_erase,@function .global check_erase >> 60 seconds per minute >> 3600 seconds per hour >> 86400 seconds per day. >> >> 5,000,000 / 86400 = 57 days of continuous writes to the same >> sector. The writer surely would have a strange file because >> he states that even a single large file can destroy the drive >> if it is mounted with the "sync" option. >> >> Also, the failure mode of NAND flash is not that it becomes >> "destroyed". The failure mode is a slow loss of data. The >> devices no longer retain data for a zillion years, only a >> few hundred, eventually, only a year or so. So when somebody >> claims that the flash has gotten destroyed, they need to have >> written it for a few months, then waited for a few years before >> reporting the event. > > Some flash devices can be "destroyed" by loosing power in the middle of > a write, since this causes them to corrupt their table of blocks and > only the manufacturer has the ability to reset that. Fortunately this > doesn't seem like too common a design. > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/whatever bs=1M count=128 Fixes a 128 megabyte flash disk, plug in other values for other sizes. > Len Sorensen Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.15.4 on an i686 machine (5589.54 BogoMips). Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction, book release in April. _  **************************************************************** The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them. Thank you. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/