JFFS3 & performance

[Artem B. Bityuckiy]

May be smth like:
#ifdef I_AM_NOT_PARANOID
static inline uint32_t
checksum(void *buf)
{
	return 0;
}

static inline int
is_checksum_correct(uint32_t checksum, void *buf)
{
	return 1;
}
#else
static inline uint32_t
checksum(void *buf)
{
        return do_checksum(JFFS3_CRC_INITIAL, buf);
}

static inline int
is_checksum_correct(uint32_t checksum, void *buf)
{
        return checksum == do_checksum(JFFS3_CRC_INITIAL, buf);
}
#endif

:-) ?

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Jared Hulbert wrote:
> > Guess we'll have to agree to disagree then :).  All I know is that I
> > want to be damn sure that the data I'm returning isn't totally screwed.
> > Call me paranoid.  A checksum is the only way I know of doing that.
> 
> Paranoid :)
> 
> Checksums may reduce the chance, as Artem says,  of having your device "start
> sending private keys of your corporative clients to random addresses" 
> because of flash blocks going bad.  Last I checked, read errors were a
> very, very improbable event with high quality NOR and besides
> checksuming the filesystem won't help protecting us from gamma rays
> causing such a problem once the library is in RAM;)
> 
> To humor those of us willing to take our chances trusting the media
> won't go bad, would it be possible to architect JFFS3 such that
> disabling the checksumming or stripping it out is possible with out
> too much pain?
> 
> Given the performance we get out of even the fastest checksum
> algorithms proposed and tested here, it seems checksumming data that
> doesn't need it would be a significant performance bottleneck.  I see
> this filesystem bottleneck as a big issue when trying to get Linux to
> boot really fast, such as for a cell phone.  I understand that most
> cell phones have NOR that can be counted on not to have read errors
> and that a single successful Linux based phone model could, in matter
> of weeks, become the source of the vast majority of running instances
> of JFFS2/3 in the universe.  Some would see that as more support for
> the need for checksums, but I think it says it's worth adding a
> no-checksum option to serve this potential userbase that just doesn't
> need the checksums but does need the speed.
> 
> I'm not trying to drag on this discussion just for kicks.  In fact I
> think it's probably not worth replying to this message, unless there
> is something really fantasic and new to add (For example "By George,
> he's right!").  I think we all understand each other now.
> 

--
Best Regards,
Artem B. Bityuckiy,
St.-Petersburg, Russia.