since when does ARM map the kernel memory in sections?

[Andrei Warkentin]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Peter Waechtler <pwaechtler at mac.com> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 27. April 2011, 02:27:57 schrieben Sie:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Jamie Lokier <jamie at shareable.org> wrote:
>> >> Reliable writes are exposed via REQ_FUA.
>> >
>> > Are you sure that's appropriate?
>> >
>> > Unless I have misunderstood (very possible), REQ_FUA means writes hit
>> > non-volatile storage before acknowledgement, not that they are atomic.
>> > I think the normal users of REQ_FUA don't require or expect large
>> > atomic writes; they use it as a shortcut for (write & flush this
>> > write) without implying anything else is flushed.
>>
>> I would agree with you that it's not the best mapping. However, a failed
>> MMC write transaction has other properties. If I understand correctly,
>> depending on mode of failure (say pulling power), you might wind up
>> with extra data getting erased (because erase
>> happens at erase unit boundary), and erase can be done before all the
>> data was transferred from host to card.
>>
>
> No, it's not because of the erase unit size larger than write size.
> An "erase unit" is cleared by garbage collection only IFF the complete unit is
> unused - asynchronously by the ongoing write transaction. The problem with
> damaging neighboring data is: density. No beer (today), i'm drinking wine ;)
>
> The cells storing the "bits" gets smaller and smaller and with multi level
> cells even more bits are represented by "fewer electrons". Programming the
> neighbor cell disturbs the fragile cells. If the error correction is disturbed
> by power loss: off we go...
>
> Someone from the flash vendors eavesdropping? Please, pretty please ... :)
>
>        Peter
>
> P.S. Andrei: sorry for reposting, but Kmail confuses me with "Reply to all"
>

No problem, I'm confused actually if my mails got through... Here and
in the other mmc flash reliability thread.

A