UBIL design doc
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.
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
More information about the linux-mtd