Re: [RFC] slight UBI scan time improvement

[Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@parrot.com>]

Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 07:42:32PM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've prepared 2 UBI patches which may slightly improve the scan time. I
>> am not sure though. Would you guys please try them and tell if UBI scan
>> time changed? Thanks in advance.
> 
> Hi Artem,
> 
> Thanks for your patch.. unfortunately I don't see a significant
> difference, although it is slightly faster.
> 
> Before:
> 
> [    0.950000] NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xec, Chip ID: 0xdc (Samsung NAND 512MiB 3,3V 8-bit)
> [    0.960000] Scanning device for bad blocks
> [    1.000000] Bad eraseblock 494 at 0x03dc0000
> [    1.050000] Bad eraseblock 1300 at 0x0a280000
> [    1.140000] Bad eraseblock 2554 at 0x13f40000
> [    1.160000] Bad eraseblock 2923 at 0x16d60000
> [    1.200000] Bad eraseblock 3349 at 0x1a2a0000
> [    1.230000] Bad eraseblock 3790 at 0x1d9c0000
> [    6.900000] UBI: attached mtd9 to ubi0
> 
> After:
> 
> [    0.950000] NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xec, Chip ID: 0xdc (Samsung NAND 512MiB 3,3V 8-bit)
> [    0.960000] Scanning device for bad blocks
> [    1.000000] Bad eraseblock 494 at 0x03dc0000
> [    1.050000] Bad eraseblock 1300 at 0x0a280000
> [    1.140000] Bad eraseblock 2554 at 0x13f40000
> [    1.160000] Bad eraseblock 2923 at 0x16d60000
> [    1.200000] Bad eraseblock 3349 at 0x1a2a0000
> [    1.230000] Bad eraseblock 3790 at 0x1d9c0000
> [    6.890000] UBI: attached mtd9 to ubi0
> 
> 
> 
> Hamish

Do you know when the bad block scanning finish and the ubi scan start ?


Matthieu