Execute in place.

[Jörn Engel]

On Wed, 4 June 2003 11:08:48 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 11:06, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 10:57, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > > For my flash chips, an erase operation is in the ballpark of a second.
> > > That is very long for interrupts, so I would assume, we never complete
> > > an erase without being interrupted.  Does this mean that a formerly
> > > suspended and resumed erase operation completes quicker than a fresh
> > > one? 
> > 
> > That appears to be the case, yes. Certainly, in the common case of it
> > being 10ms before you get the next timer tick and consider rescheduling,
> > the chip's made enough progress that it doesn't have to start again from
> > scratch.
> 
> Oh, and bear in mind that if erases were happening and you were trying
> to read from the filesystem, that was causing many many erase suspends
> to happen too anyway -- if this was a problem, it would have bitten us
> as soon as we started suspending erases to permit reads to happen.

Right.  The great goddess Empiria smiles upon us.

Jörn

-- 
The cheapest, fastest and most reliable components of a computer
system are those that aren't there.
-- Gordon Bell, DEC labratories