> On 25 Jan 2019, at 17.46, Hans Holmberg <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:35 PM Matias Bjørling <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/25/19 3:21 PM, Hans Holmberg wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:33 PM Javier González <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 25 Jan 2019, at 13.59, Hans Holmberg <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:41 AM Javier González <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25 Jan 2019, at 09.47, Hans Holmberg
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:51 PM Zhoujie Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The write pointer of the bad block could be 0 or undefined, ignore
>>>>>>>> the checking of the bad block wp for pblk_line_wp_is_unbalanced to
>>>>>>>> avoid fake warning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fake -> spurious?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhoujie Wu <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> v3: return in case bit >= lm->blk_per_line.
>>>>>>>> v2: changed according to Javier's comments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> drivers/lightnvm/pblk-recovery.c | 12 +++++++++---
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-recovery.c
>>>>>>>> b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-recovery.c
>>>>>>>> index 6761d2a..02d466e 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-recovery.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-recovery.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -312,21 +312,27 @@ static int pblk_line_wp_is_unbalanced(struct
>>>>>>>> pblk *pblk,
>>>>>>>> struct nvm_chk_meta *chunk;
>>>>>>>> struct ppa_addr ppa;
>>>>>>>> u64 line_wp;
>>>>>>>> - int pos, i;
>>>>>>>> + int pos, i, bit;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We don't need both bit and i, one of them is enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - rlun = &pblk->luns[0];
>>>>>>>> + bit = find_first_zero_bit(line->blk_bitmap, lm->blk_per_line);
>>>>>>>> + if (bit >= lm->blk_per_line)
>>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is only one non-offline chunk in the line, the wp can't be
>>>>>>> unbalanced,
>>>>>>> so it should be safe to return 0 here if bit >= lm->blk_per_line - 1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you change this please document why using a comment, as it might
>>>>>>> not be obvious
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> + rlun = &pblk->luns[bit];
>>>>>>>> ppa = rlun->bppa;
>>>>>>>> pos = pblk_ppa_to_pos(geo, ppa);
>>>>>>>> chunk = &line->chks[pos];
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> line_wp = chunk->wp;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - for (i = 1; i < lm->blk_per_line; i++) {
>>>>>>>> + for (i = bit + 1; i < lm->blk_per_line; i++) {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> rlun = &pblk->luns[i];
>>>>>>>> ppa = rlun->bppa;
>>>>>>>> pos = pblk_ppa_to_pos(geo, ppa);
>>>>>>>> chunk = &line->chks[pos];
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This code is a copy of the code above, it'd be nice to refactor it
>>>>>>> into a helper function or just do the chunk lookups in one place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> + if (chunk->state & NVM_CHK_ST_OFFLINE)
>>>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since we rely on the block bitmap anyway, we might as well just
>>>>>>> iterate over the zeroes in the block bitmap using find_next_zero_bit
>>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>> We do this in lots of other places, see: git grep -n
>>>>>>> find_next_zero_bit -- drivers/lightnvm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans, I proposed him to use the chunk->state instead. I think it is way
>>>>>> more robust. We introduced the block bitmap for OCSSD 1.2, because there
>>>>>> was no state. Now that we have state, it is better to use it instead. In
>>>>>> fact, we should remove the bock bitmap as we have to check for the state
>>>>>> either way - note that this aligns also very well with you patches
>>>>>> removing the other bitmaps.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are just nitpicks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Relying on two data structures(chunks, block bitmap) to be in sync in
>>>>> this function in stead of one does not make it more robust imho.
>>>>> Either or (checking chunks or the block bitmap) is fine by me.
>>>>> Searching the bitmap is more efficient, so that is what I proposed.
>>>>
>>>> chunk log page is the ground truth, so it is more robust.
>>>>
>>>> Also, pblk has a long way to start seeing bitmap search vs. integer
>>>> comparisons in profiling.
>>>
>>> Hehe, yeah, but it does not hurt to use the better alternative when
>>> available.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we want to remove the block bitmap, we can do that as a separate
>>>>> patch(set)
>>>>> I do agree, having two copies of the chunk state is something worth
>>>>> getting rid of :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A good start is not adding code using what we want to remove.
>>>
>>> Well, I think it's very confusing to use both copies in the same function.
>>>
>>> Now we're nitpicking nitpicks :)
>>>
>>
>> I look forward to a patch. Will one of you volunteer a patch?
>
> Sure! It'd be easier to Illustrate what I mean with a patch.
Cool. Go ahead - you will see how much cleaner it is using the chunk info.
Matias : In any case Zhoujie’s fix is orthogonal to this discussion and I think
you should pick it up - in one form of bb iteration or another - as it fixes a
real issue.
Javier.
