From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-bw0-f49.google.com ([209.85.214.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1P3wCT-0000gJ-Jb for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:32:22 +0000 Received: by bwz2 with SMTP id 2so206144bwz.36 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] JFFS2: Dynamically choose inocache hash size From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Daniel Drake In-Reply-To: <20101007181402.982199D401B@zog.reactivated.net> References: <20101007181402.982199D401B@zog.reactivated.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:32:15 +0300 Message-ID: <1286479935.1797.14.camel@brekeke> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, dwmw2@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 Thu, 2010-10-07 at 19:14 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: > When JFFS2 is used for large volumes, the mount times are quite long. > Increasing the hash size provides a significant speed boost on the OLPC > XO-1 laptop. > > Add logic that dynamically selects a hash size based on the size of > the medium. A 64mb medium will result in a hash size of 128, and a 512mb > medium will result in a hash size of 1024. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake Why is this complication needed? Unless there is a very good reason, I'd just stick with older patch you sent, which I BTW also have in my l2-mtd-2.6.git tree: http://git.infradead.org/users/dedekind/l2-mtd-2.6.git/commit/22cf48a8673a8eabfd014de032e426452cce0fc9 -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)