Some followup.
1) I re-read the original proposals to support TRIM/DISCARD here:
https://lwn.net/Articles/293658/
Note the original API asked for "unsigned nr_sects" - which is
essentially what my proposed hack does. I'll need to find out
where/why this got dropped.
2) I've been able to test this hack on an eMMC device:
[ 13.147747] mmc..._secdiscard_rq(mmc1) ERASE from 14116864 cnt
0x2c00000 (size 22528 MiB)
[ 13.155964] sdhci cmd: 35/0x1a arg 0xd76800
[ 13.160266] sdhci cmd: 36/0x1a arg 0x39767ff
[ 13.164593] sdhci cmd: 38/0x1b arg 0x80000000
[ 13.803360] random: nonblocking pool is initialized
[ 14.567735] sdhci cmd: 13/0x1a arg 0x10000
[ 14.573324] mmc..._secdiscard_rq(mmc1) err 0
This was with ~15K files and about 5GB written to the device. 1.4
seconds compared to about 20 minutes to secure erase the same region
with original v3.18 code.
3) I've started reviewing all references to REQ_DISCARD. SCSI
subsystem cripples "count" to 32 bits as well (See
skd_prep_discard_cdb()) and that's not going to be easy to fix. :(
A few other places that use blk_req_sectors() are easily replaced with
blk_req_bytes(). I'm not sure I need to do anything about references
to bio_iter.bi_size.
cheers,
grant
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Grant Grundler <grundler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jens, Ulf,
>
> I've run into a basic issue: BLK_SECDISCARD takes 15-35 minutes
> perform a secure erase of ~23GB (mostly empty) partition on a 32GB
> eMMC part (happens with two vendors). One of the vendors says it
> should take less than 60 seconds. I've confirmed erasing 2GB takes
> only ~6 seconds - so the vendor estimate seems reasonable.
>
> I'm looking for (a) advice on better v3.18 solutions and (b) start
> discuss future solutions for upstream kernel.
>
> Two problems:
> 1) 3.18 kernel block layer wants to split up the transaction into
> "max_discard_sectors" chunks. This would be fine if
> max_discard_sectors was more than one or two erase groups (EG). For
> one of the eMMC parts, EG size is 512KB and thus the kernel sends
> 46,000 commands (DISCARD w/SECURE_ERASE arg) to the eMMC device. At
> the bottom I discuss why this is such a bad idea for SECURE_ERASE.
>
> My hack to fix (1): ignore max_discard_sectors for SECURE_ERASE
> (BLK_SECDISCARD):
> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/301460/
>
> I'm trying to recover the 9 bits that blk_rq_sectors() discards and
> don't care sub-512byte block offsets.
>
>
> 2) Unfortunately, with the above hack, the block layer is truncating
> the request to 2GB. :( Turns out several fields in the block layer are
> 32-bit. Notably:
> struct request.__data_len
> struct bvec_iter.bi_size
> struct bio_vec.bv_len
>
> This is despite ioctl(BLK_SECDISCARD) having a 64-bit API to pass in
> "number of bytes to erase" and the emmc spec allowing 32-bits to
> specify the LBA. I looked at changing the above data structures (which
> normally only need 20-bits or so) to 64-bit and it's a systemic
> change. "Non-trivial" doesn't even begin to describe the scope here.
>
> So I have an even worse hack to use 9 "zero" bits here (and this works
> for 3.18 - not sure it would for 4.x kernels):
> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/301349
>
> 9-bits gives me a bit of time until eMMC devices are > 1TB in
> capacity. Maybe a few more months. :)
>
>
> Last code change: I'm also not sure I need to set MMC_CAP2_HC_ERASE_SZ
> but I do in this 3rd patch:
> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/301461
>
> sdhci-acpi and sdhci-pci drivers already do this. I didn't see an
> obvious place to set this for the sdhci-tegra variant or what that
> code is required to do/support when setting HC_ERASE_SZ capability.
>
>
>
> --- Why is splitting up BLK_SECDISCARD such a bad idea? ----
> Command overhead in the degenerate case is bad and probably causing
> the majority of the performance loss here. I'm assuming the device can
> issue lots of erase transaction in parallel. Thus sending a secure
> erase command for each erase group of LBAs seems like a recipe for
> very long serial sequence (which is what we are seeing).
>
> I believe there is another problem besides command overhead: migration
> of "live" data from one erase group (that we just told the device it
> has to erase) to another erase group (that we will tell the device to
> erase in the future).
>
> If I'm going to erase 16GB of 32GB device, we have NO clue what data
> has to move and where it will move to. However, If I tell the device
> to evacuate and erase a particular physical block, the more chunks I
> have to erase, the more opportunity for the evacuated data to land in
> an erase group that will get erased in a future command.
>
> Lastly, for Android, the system is in recovery mode and doing nothing
> else. So there is no reason to split up the commands into "smaller
> chunks" like a normal IO (where it clearly makes sense up to a point).
> Secure Erase performance is critical here. The longer Secure Erase
> takes, the less likely people will do it. And I don't think the world
> needs more papers on linux products that don't properly erase data.
>
> cheers,
> grant
--
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
