[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1494236048.6528.32.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 10:34:08 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Race to power off harming SATA SSDs
On Mon, 2017-05-08 at 11:28 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Are you sure you have it right in JFFS2? Do you journal block erases?
> Apparently, that was pretty much non-issue on older flashes.
It isn't necessary in JFFS2. It is a *purely* log-structured file
system (which is why it doesn't scale well past the 1GiB or so that we
made it handle for OLPC).
So we don't erase a block until all its contents are obsolete. And if
we fail to complete the erase... well the contents are either going to
fail a CRC check, or... still be obsoleted by later entries elsewhere.
And even if it *looks* like an erase has completed and the block is all
0xFF, we erase it again and write a 'clean marker' to it to indicate
that the erase was completed successfully. Because otherwise it can't
be trusted.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (4938 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists