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

Re: JFFS2: powerfailtesting again



>
> StrongARM 1100 @133MHz ~ 124 Bogomips, 32Mb SDRAM , 4Mb16bit wide Intel boot
> block flash - 28F320C3 , see
> http://developer.intel.com/design/flcomp/datashts/29064510.pdf

That's about 2.5 more BOGO mips than mine ;)


> > There is something wrong for sure. On my 100MHz 486 with a 8MB flash
> > partition
> > with about 5MB of data on it (JFFS2), I don't have any blocks more than a few
> > seconds
> > at a time.
>
> I have big incompressible file on fs , could this be a problem ?
> I'm using Intel boot flash and it takes (currently) less than 0.5 sec to erase
> sector on it, but it could be longer according to specification.

Is this a static file or is this file being written to? If it is a static file, I
don't see why
this would cause a long mount time.

> >
> > I have a small program that runs as a real time POSIX task (in the kernel).
> > In writing out a few 10's of bytes
> > every 100ms, the worst case block I got on the wakeup time for the task was
> > ~600ms. This was writing
> > to the fs that was ~60% full.
> >
> > >From what I remember I had let the task run for hours. Maybe I need to let it
> > run for days and see what the
> > worst case time would be. :)
> >
>
> try to fill fs 100% and restart immediately.

That is a big problem. Why would your fs become completely full in real life? If it
does
it means the gc task cannot gc more data, on average in the background, than you are

creating in the foreground- on average.

This means that you are going to have inconsistent read/write performance to your
JFFS2 fs. Good write times till your file system gets full, then a horrible block
till the
GC gets to clear space.

Ok, I re-ran my test (the one I mentioned above). This time letting it go overnight
(18 hrs), writing about 30bytes per 100ms.
(That's about 18 megabytes of data to the 8 MB fs which is about 55% full of static
files).

The worst case block that I got was ~3.4 seconds.

But what is more interesting is that the majority of the blocks are in the region of
~500 - 600ms,
but are **NOT always associated with chip erases**.

Take a look at an excerpt from my o/p log file (COL 1= Delay from last wakeup(IDEAL
=  100ms), COL 2= wake latency in ms):
The "CHIP_ERASE" messages are from printk's in the MTD flash erase routine in
CFI_CMDSET_0002.c
This way I can see how often the sectors are being erased and what the jitter with
each sector erase is.

<...snip...>
 124.643000 ms   24.643000 ms
 139.394000 ms   39.394000 ms
 124.368000 ms   24.368000 ms
 129.335000 ms   29.335000 ms
 131.789000 ms   31.789000 ms
 2048.839000 ms   1948.839000 ms  <-----Notice 1.9sec jitter. There is NO CHIP_ERASE
around it!
 139.355000 ms   39.355000 ms
 130.043000 ms   30.043000 ms
 362.199000 ms   262.199000 ms   <-----Again notice the 262ms jitter right *before*
the chip erase. GC task at work?
CHIP_ERASE:Erasing_at_address: 0x180000
 157.740000 ms   57.740000 ms   <---The jitter from the above CHIP_ERASE is "only"
57+100ms = 157ms worst case.??!!?
 530.136000 ms   430.136000 ms <---Again GC task at work???
 154.708000 ms   54.708000 ms
<..snip..>

There is nothing going on in the system, except writes to JFFS2 and  GC's in the
background. What in the GC task is blocking for more than
few 100's of milli seconds, sometime more than a second????

I think this is worth investigating.

David, The GC task, even though it runs as a kernel thread, is the execution preempt
able? (Not the system calls it makes of course, the
thread itself?)

If yes, any idea where the extra long blocking time is coming from? (if not from
sector erases).

>
> My FS is almost unchangeable except for rapid updates of single file up to 100%
> of free space and fast reboot after this - try to do this several times . If this
> triggers the problem ?
>

Is this your normal expected system behavior? If not, why are you testing this
"extreme" case?

Vipin


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe jffs-dev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxx.com