From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233] helo=mgw-mx06.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1NhK0w-0005LT-IV for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:46:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] jffs:2 Move erasing from write_super to GC. From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Joakim Tjernlund In-Reply-To: References: <1266249781-27970-1-git-send-email-Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se> <1266310672.11659.197.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:45:35 +0200 Message-ID: <1266313535.11659.203.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 10:18 +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > Also, I think you should call it with count = 1, so that you would erase > > only one EB at one iteration. This way you will let the GC thread do > > other things with less latency as well. > > If we reduce the count to 1 one might just as well remove count from > jffs2_erase_pending_blocks() and make it just erase one block on each invocation, > not sure I like that as it will be more overhead when erasing many blocks. > > I figure erasing blocks is the most rewarding form of GC so there should > be no need to reduce latency for other things, can you think of a reason? Hmm, yes, you are right. Please, discard my "erase only 1" suggestion. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)