[PATCH 4/4] UBI WL-Subsys: Improvement in prot tree

[xiaochuan-xu]

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 10:44 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> 
> I think it does not matter much and we may use the same constant for
> short term and unknown eraseblocks. I do not see much difference
> between
> 8 or 16. Does it really matter? We just want to prevent this
> eraseblock
> from being moved for some reasonable "time". And everything depends on
> work-load of course. So I think just using the same constant for all
> PEB

My opposite experiment indicates that such unified-protection-time
method seems to be not better than the different-protection-time one in
run time. the system run time fluctuates. 

One major reason, I think, is short term (youngest) PEBs got together in
the protection "queue", when they wear out the protection time and be
flushed to used RB-tree, quantities of wear-leveling worker may trigger
one time. 

> types is reasonable. This will be simpler.
> 
> But of course, the best way is to test things.
-- 
Yours sincerely
xiaochuan-xu(cqu.edu.cn)