RE: [PATCH]mmc: core: not to --qty when calculate timeout for SECURE_ERASE

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hunter, Adrian
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 7:06 PM
> To: Dong, Chuanxiao
> Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; cjb@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]mmc: core: not to --qty when calculate timeout for
> SECURE_ERASE
> 
> On 13/04/12 07:19, Chuanxiao Dong wrote:
> > --qty when calculating erase timeout for trim/erase & secure
> > trim/erase can prevent the erase range crossing qty+1 erase groups,
> > which made the final timeout value is too large for the host.
> >
> > When operate SECURE_ERASE, driver needs the erase range is aligned
> > with erase size, otherwise do nothing and return an error. That is to
> > say it is not necessary for SECURE_ERASE to --qty since it will never
> > cross an erase group.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chuanxiao Dong <chuanxiao.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mmc/core/core.c |    9 ++++++++-
> >  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c index
> > e541efb..b5a393a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> > @@ -1761,7 +1761,7 @@ static unsigned int mmc_do_calc_max_discard(struct
> mmc_card *card,
> >  	if (!qty)
> >  		return 0;
> >
> > -	if (qty == 1)
> > +	if (qty == 1 && arg != MMC_SECURE_ERASE_ARG)
> >  		return 1;
> 
> arg is never MMC_SECURE_ERASE_ARG
> 
> >
> >  	/* Convert qty to sectors */
> > @@ -1772,6 +1772,13 @@ static unsigned int mmc_do_calc_max_discard(struct
> mmc_card *card,
> >  	else
> >  		max_discard = --qty * card->erase_size;
> >
> > +	/*
> > +	 * since SECURE_ERASE is erase group aligned, otherwise
> > +	 * it cannot be erased in secure purpose, needn't --qty
> > +	 */
> > +	if (arg == MMC_SECURE_ERASE_ARG)
> > +		max_discard += card->erase_size;
> > +
> >  	return max_discard;
> >  }
> >
> 
> What about:
> 
> From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:32:42 +0300
> Subject: [PATCH] mmc: core: fix max_discard calculation
> 
> The maximum discard calculation was unnecessarily pessimistic in the case of
> erasing entire erase groups.  In that case, the quantity does not need to be
> decreased by 1 to allow for misalignment because the erasure is always aligned to
> whole erase groups.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/mmc/core/core.c |   22 +++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c index
> 0b6141d..36bfdce 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> @@ -1742,7 +1742,7 @@ static unsigned int mmc_do_calc_max_discard(struct
> mmc_card *card,  {
>  	struct mmc_host *host = card->host;
>  	unsigned int max_discard, x, y, qty = 0, max_qty, timeout;
> -	unsigned int last_timeout = 0;
> +	unsigned int last_timeout = 0, aligned_qty;
> 
>  	if (card->erase_shift)
>  		max_qty = UINT_MAX >> card->erase_shift; @@ -1769,16 +1769,28 @@
> static unsigned int mmc_do_calc_max_discard(struct mmc_card *card,
>  	if (!qty)
>  		return 0;
> 
> -	if (qty == 1)
> -		return 1;
> +	if (arg & MMC_TRIM_ARGS) {
> +		/*
> +		 * The requested number of sectors may not be aligned to an
> +		 * erase group, so we have to decrease the quantity by 1 (unless
> +		 * it is 1) e.g. trimming 2 sectors could cause 2 erase groups
> +		 * to be affected even though 2 sectors is less than the size of
> +		 * 1 erase group.
> +		 */
> +		if (qty == 1)
> +			return 1;
> +		aligned_qty = qty - 1;
> +	} else {
> +		aligned_qty = qty;
> +	}
> 
>  	/* Convert qty to sectors */
>  	if (card->erase_shift)
> -		max_discard = --qty << card->erase_shift;
> +		max_discard = aligned_qty << card->erase_shift;
>  	else if (mmc_card_sd(card))
>  		max_discard = qty;
>  	else
> -		max_discard = --qty * card->erase_size;
> +		max_discard = aligned_qty * card->erase_size;
> 
>  	return max_discard;
>  }

Hi Hunter,
Your patch looks good to me.

Since you also mentioned that the arg will never be MMC_SECURE_ERASE_ARG, I want to know why not calculate erase size for secure trim/erase operations? As specification said, secure trim/erase operations has different timeout value with trim/erase.

Thanks
Chuanxiao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux