lfs_mdir_isopen goes unused if asserts are disabled, and this caused an
"unused function" warning on Clang (curiously not on GCC since the
function was static inline, commonly used for header-only functions).
Also removed "inline" from the lfs_mdir_* functions as these involve
linked-list operations and really shouldn't be inlined. And since they
are static, inlining should occur automatically if there is a benefit.
Found by dpgeorge
After a bit of tweaking in 9dde5c7 to write out all superblocks
during lfs_format, additional writes were added after the sanity
checking normally done at the end.
This turned out to be a problem when porting littlefs, as it makes it
easy for addressing issues to not get caught during lfs_format.
Found by marekr, tristanclare94, and mjs513
We have seen poor read performance on NAND flashes with 128kB blocks.
The root cause is inline files having to traverse many sets of metadata
pairs inside the current block before being fully reconstructed. Simply
disabling inline files is not enough, as the metadata will still fill up
the block and eventually need to be compacted.
By allowing configuration of how much size metadata takes up, along with
limiting (or disabling) inline file size, we achieve read performance
improvements on an order of magnitude.
This indirectly solves an issue with lfs_file_rawclose asserting
when lfs_file_opencfg errors since appending to the mlist occurs
after open. It also may speed up some of the internal operations such as
the lfs_file_write used to resolve unflushed data.
The idea behind adopting mlist over flags is that realistically it's
unlikely for the user to open a significant number of files (enough for
big O to kick in). That being said, moving the mlist asserts into the
API wrappers does protect some of the internal operations from scaling
based on the number of open files.
This removes quite a bit of extra code needed to entertwine the
LFS_TRACE calls into the original funcions.
Also changed temporary return type to match API declaration where
necessary.
- Stayed on non-system include for lfs_util.h for now
- Named internal functions "lfs_functionraw"
- Merged lfs_fs_traverseraw
- Added LFS_LOCK/UNLOCK macros
- Changed LFS_THREADSAFE from 1/0 to defined/undefined to
match LFS_READONLY
- expand functions
- add comment
- rename functions
- fix locking issue in format and mount
- use global include
- fix ac6 linker issue
- use the global config file
- address review comments
- minor cleanup
- minor cleanup
- review comments
- undef unavailable function declarations altogether
- even less code, assert on write attempts
- remove LFS_O_WRONLY and other flags when compiling with LFS_READONLY
- do not annotate #endif, as requested
- move ifdef before comments blocks, rework dangling opening bracket
- ifdef file flags that are not needed in read-only mode
- slight refactor
- ifdef LFS_F_ERRED out as well
Previously we only bumped the revision count if an eviction would occur
immediately (and possibly corrupt littlefs). This works, but does risk
an unoptimal superblock size if an almost-exhausted superblock was
allocated during lfs_format.
As pointed out by tim-nordell-nimbelink, we can align the revision count
to maximize the number of block cycles without breaking the existing
requirements of increasing revision counts.
As an added benefit, littlefs's wear-leveling should behave more
consistently after this change.
This bug was exposed by the bad-block tests due to changes to block
allocation, but could have been hit before these changes.
In flash, when blocks fail, they don't fail in a predictable manner. To
account for this, the bad-block tests check a number of failure
behaviors. The interesting one here is "LFS_TESTBD_BADBLOCK_ERASENOOP",
in which bad blocks can not be erased or programmed, and are stuck with
the data written at the time the blocks go bad.
This is actually a pretty realistic failure behavior, since flash needs a
large voltage to force the electrons of the floating gates. Though
realistically, such a failure would like corrupt the data a bit, not leave the
underlying data perfectly intact.
LFS_TESTBD_BADBLOCK_ERASENOOP is rather interesting to test for because it
means bad blocks can end up with perfectly valid CRCs after a failed write,
confusing littlefs.
---
In this case, we had the perfect series of operations such that a test
was repeatedly writing the same sequence of metadata commits to the same
block, which eventually goes bad, leaving the block stuck with metadata
that occurs later in the sequence.
What this means is that after the first commit, the metadata block
contained both the first and second commits, even though the loop in the
test hadn't reached that point yet.
expected actual
.----------. .----------.
| commit 1 | | commit 1 |
| crc 1 | | crc 1 |
| | | commit 2 <-- (from previous iteration)
| | | crc 2 |
'----------' '----------'
To protect against this, littlefs normally compares the written CRC
against the expected CRC, but because this was the exact same data that
it was going to write, this CRCs end up the same.
Ah! But doesn't littlefs also encode the state of the next page to keep
track of if the next page has been erased or not? Wouldn't that change
between iterations?
It does! In a single bit in the CRC-tag. But thanks to some incorrect
logic attempting to avoid an extra condition in the loop for writing out
padding commits, the CRC that littlefs checked against was the CRC
immediately before we include the "is-next-page-erased" bit.
Changing the verification check to use the same CRC as what is used to
verify commits on fetch solves this problem.
Not sure how this went unnoticed, I guess this is the first bug that
needed in-depth inspection after the a last-minute argument cleanup
in the debug scripts.
This rather interesting corner-case arises in lfs_dir_alloc anytime the
uninitialized revision count happens to be a multiple of block_cycles+1.
For example, the source of the bug found by tim-nordell-nimbelink:
rev = 2742492087
block_cycles = 100
2742492087 % (100+1) = 0
The reason for this weird block_cycles+1 case is due to a fix for a
previous bug in fe957de. To avoid aliasing, which would cause metadata
pairs to wear unevenly, block_cycles incremented to the next odd number.
Normally, littlefs tweaks the revision count of blocks during
lfs_dir_alloc in order to make sure evictions can't happen on the first
compact. Otherwise, higher-level logic such as lfs_format would break.
However, this wasn't updated with the aliasing fix in fe957de, so
lfs_dir_alloc was only rounding the revision count to the nearest even
number.
The current fix is to change the logic in lfs_dir_alloc to explicitly
check for the eviction condition and increment if eviction would occur.
Found by tim-nordell-nimbelink
As noted by gtaska, we are sitting on a better hash-combining function
than xor: CRC. Previous issues with xor were solvable, but relying on
xor for this isn't really worth the risk when we already have a CRC
function readily available.
To quote a study found by gtaska:
https://michiel.buddingh.eu/distribution-of-hash-values
> CRC32 seems to score really well, but its graph is skewed by the results
> of Dataset 5 (binary numbers), which may or may not be too synthetic to
> be considered a fair benchmark. But even if you substract the results
> from that test, it does not fare significantly worse than other,
> cryptographic hash functions.
On first read, randomizing the allocators offset may seem appropriate
for lfs_alloc_reset. However, it ends up using the filesystem-fed
pseudorandom seed in situations it wasn't designed for.
As noted by gtaska, the combination of using xors for feeding the seed
and multiple traverses of the same CRCs can cause the seed to flip to
zeros with concerning frequency.
Removed the randomization from lfs_alloc_reset, leaving it in only
lfs_mount.
Found by gtaska
Modulus of the offset by block_size was clearly a typo, and should be
block_count. Interesting to note that later moduluses during alloc
calculations prevents this from breaking anything, but as gtaska notes it
could skew the wear-leveling distribution.
Found by guiserle and gtaska
As introduced in #297, I created a python wrapper for littlefs. The wrapper supports two API's: A C-like API which is the same as in C and a more pythonic API which is easier to use if you are more the python guy. The wrapper is built with littlefs 2.2.1 at the moment.
