Re: [PATCH 5/5] lightnvm: pblk: fix erase counters on error fail

[Matias BjÃrling]

On 04/22/2017 11:31 AM, Javier GonzÃlez wrote:
> > On 22 Apr 2017, at 11.22, Matias BjÃrling <mb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/22/2017 01:32 AM, Javier GonzÃlez wrote:
> > > When block erases fail, these blocks are marked bad. The number of valid
> > > blocks in the line was not updated, which could cause an infinite loop
> > > on the erase path.
> > >
> > > Fix this atomic counter and, in order to avoid taking an irq lock on the
> > > interrupt context, make the erase counters atomic too.
> >
> > I can't find out where the counters are used in irq context? Can you
> > point me in the right direction? I'll prefer for these counters to go
> > in under the existing line_lock.
>
> This counter is line->blk_in_line, which is used on pblk_mark_bb. This
> is triggered on the erase completion path. Note that we do not want to
> wait until the recovery kicks in on the workqueue since the line might
> start getting recycled straight away if we are close to reaching
> capacity. This is indeed the scenario that triggers the race condition.
>
> Making all erase counters atomic allows us to avoid taking the
> line_lock. Note that the counters do not depend on each other.
>
> > > Also, in the case that a significant number of blocks become bad in a
> > > line, the result is the double shared metadata buffer (emeta) to stop
> > > the pipeline until all metadata is flushed to the media. Increase the
> > > number of metadata lines from 2 to 4 to avoid this case.
> >
> > How does moving to 4 lines solve this case? The way I read it is that
> > it only postpones when this occurs?
>
> The chances of having more than 2 lines falling out of blocks after
> pre-condition are slim. Adding two more lines should be enough.
>
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > -#define PBLK_DATA_LINES 2
> > > +#define PBLK_DATA_LINES 4
> >
> > Why this change? I like to keep new features for 4.13. Only bugfixes for 4.12.
>
> This is the 4 lines referred above. I see it as a bug fix since we risk
> stalling the pipeline if a line goes above a certain number of bad
> blocks on initialization, but we can leave it out and fix this when we
> add in-line metadata on the write thread for 4.12
>
> Thanks,
> Javier

Okay. It tickles me a bit. However, to make it pretty, some refactoring 
is needed, which we won't push for this release.

Reviewed-by: Matias BjÃrling <matias@xxxxxxxxxxxx>