> On 4 Mar 2019, at 10.02, Hans Holmberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Igor: Have you seen this happening in real life?
> 
> I think it would be better to count all expected errors and put them
> in the right bucket (without spamming dmesg). If we need a new bucket
> for i.e. vendor-specific-errors, let's do that instead.
> 
> Someone wiser than me told me that every error print in the log is a
> potential customer call.
> 
> Javier: Yeah, I think S.M.A.R.T is the way to deliver this
> information. Why can't we let the drives expose this info and remove
> this from pblk? What's blocking that?

Until now the spec. We added some new log information in Denali exactly
for this. But since pblk supports OCSSD 1.2 and 2.0 I think it is needed to
have it here, at least for debugging.

> 
> Thanks,
> Hans
> 
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 8:42 AM Javier González <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 27 Feb 2019, at 18.14, Igor Konopko <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Currently when unknown error occurs on read path
>>> there is only dmesg information about it, but it
>>> is not counted in sysfs statistics. Since this is
>>> still an error we should also count it there.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Igor Konopko <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/lightnvm/pblk-core.c | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-core.c
>>> index eabcbc119681..a98b2255f963 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-core.c
>>> @@ -493,6 +493,7 @@ void pblk_log_read_err(struct pblk *pblk, struct nvm_rq 
>>> *rqd)
>>>              atomic_long_inc(&pblk->read_failed);
>>>              break;
>>>      default:
>>> +             atomic_long_inc(&pblk->read_failed);
>>>              pblk_err(pblk, "unknown read error:%d\n", rqd->error);
>>>      }
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_NVM_PBLK_DEBUG
>>> --
>>> 2.17.1
>> 
>> I left this out intentionally  so that we could correlate the logs from
>> the controller and the errors in the read path. Since we do not have an
>> standard way to correlate this on SMART yet, let’s add this now (I
>> assume that you are using it for something?) and we can separate the
>> error stats in the future.
>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Javier González <[email protected]>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Reply via email to