UBIL design doc

Artem Bityutskiy dedekind1 at gmail.com
Wed May 12 05:31:15 EDT 2010

On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 11:06 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 21:17 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > 
> > > Also chaining has a tradeoff. The more chains you need to walk the
> > > closer you get to the point where you are equally bad as a full scan.
> > 
> > Well, every new chain member reduces the superblock wear speed by order
> > 2, so I the chain would have 2-4 eraseblocks in most cases, I guess,
> > which is not bad.
> > 
> > In the opposite, moving the SB 3-4 eraseblocks further only reduces the
> > load merely by factor 3-4.
> Right, but having the flexibility of moving the super block in the
> first 16 or 32 blocks is not going to hurt the attach time
> significantly. I'm not against the super block and chain design, I
> merily fight fixed address designs.

Yeah, I guess this is not a big deal to shift the SB forward a bit if

It is not worth discussing further, but to make sure Brijesh is focused
on the most important things, I'd like to note that implementation-wise,
it is OK to have a constant defined to 1 so far, and later test that
everything works just fine when it is something else, and optionally
implement the SB searching function.

Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

More information about the linux-mtd mailing list