linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 0/2] mmc: block: Support Host to control FUA

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 11 Nov 2022 13:04:01 +0100
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Wenchao Chen <wenchao.chen666@...il.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc:     orsonzhai@...il.com, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
        zhang.lyra@...il.com, axboe@...nel.dk, avri.altman@....com,
        kch@...dia.com, CLoehle@...erstone.com,
        vincent.whitchurch@...s.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        s.shtylyov@....ru, michael@...winnertech.com,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        megoo.tang@...il.com, lzx.stg@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/2] mmc: block: Support Host to control FUA

[...]

> >
> > Considering the data integrity, we did a random power-down test, and
> > the experimental results were good.
> >
> > FUA can only reduce data loss under abnormal conditions, but cannot
> > prevent data loss under abnormal conditions.
> >
> > I think there should be a balance between FUA and NO FUA, but
> > filesystems seem to favor FUA.
> >
> > FUA brings a drop in random write performance. If enough tests are
> > done, NO FUA is acceptable.
>
> Testing this isn't entirely easy. It requires you to hook up
> electrical switches to allow you to automate the powering on/off of
> the platform(s). Then at each cycle, really make sure to stress test
> the data integrity of the flash memory. Is that what the tests did -
> or can you elaborate a bit on what was really tested?
>
> In any case, the performance impact boils down to how each eMMC/SD
> card internally manages reliable writes vs regular writes. Some
> vendors may treat them very similarly, while others do not.
>
> That said, trying to disable REQ_FUA from an mmc host driver is the
> wrong approach, as also pointed out by Adrian above. These types of
> decisions belong solely in the mmc core layer.
>
> Instead of what the $subject series proposes, I would rather suggest
> we discuss (and test) whether it could make sense to disable REQ_FUA -
> *if* the eMMC/SD card supports a write-back-cache (REQ_OP_FLUSH) too.
> Hence, the mmc core could then announce only REQ_OP_FLUSH.
>

Below is a simple patch that does the above. We may not want to enable
this for *all* eMMC/SD cards, but it works fine for testing and to
continue the discussions here.


From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 12:48:02 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] mmc: core: Disable REQ_FUA if the card supports an internal
 cache

!!!! This is not for merge, but only for test and discussions!!!

It has been reported that REQ_FUA can be costly on some eMMC devices. A
potential option that could mitigate this problem, is to rely solely on
REQ_OP_FLUSH instead, but that requires the eMMC/SD to support an internal
cache. This is an attempt to try this out to see how it behaves.

Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
---
 drivers/mmc/core/block.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
index db6d8a099910..197e9f6cdaad 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
@@ -2494,15 +2494,15 @@ static struct mmc_blk_data
*mmc_blk_alloc_req(struct mmc_card *card,
                        md->flags |= MMC_BLK_CMD23;
        }

-       if (md->flags & MMC_BLK_CMD23 &&
-           ((card->ext_csd.rel_param & EXT_CSD_WR_REL_PARAM_EN) ||
-            card->ext_csd.rel_sectors)) {
+       if (mmc_cache_enabled(card->host)) {
+               cache_enabled  = true;
+       } else if (md->flags & MMC_BLK_CMD23 &&
+                 (card->ext_csd.rel_param & EXT_CSD_WR_REL_PARAM_EN ||
+                  card->ext_csd.rel_sectors)) {
                md->flags |= MMC_BLK_REL_WR;
                fua_enabled = true;
                cache_enabled = true;
        }
-       if (mmc_cache_enabled(card->host))
-               cache_enabled  = true;

        blk_queue_write_cache(md->queue.queue, cache_enabled, fua_enabled);

-- 
2.34.1

Kind regards
Uffe