From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 16MqFY-0004xV-00 for ; Sat, 05 Jan 2002 12:48:36 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <001001c195e3$cd5fb180$5a9240d5@jocke> References: <001001c195e3$cd5fb180$5a9240d5@jocke> To: "Joakim Tjernlund" Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, jffs-dev@axis.com Subject: Re: CLEANMARKER question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 12:59:31 +0000 Message-ID: <6691.1010235571@redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Joakim.Tjernlund@lumentis.se said: > I have seen alot of posts about it but I have no idea on how to > proceed with this. The basic idea is to make it nice and quick for the FS code to reproduce its internal data (the jffs2_raw_node_ref lists and clean/dirty sizes) on mount without having to work it all out from scratch. Look at what the mount code does, and see how much could be avoided - then work out precisely what needs to go into the checkpoint - it'll probably end up being a tradeoff between remount speed and the size taken by the checkpoint nodes. I wonder if we could get away with writing a node at the _end_ of each eraseblock, just listing the start addresses of the nodes contained within that block? > Would checkpointing still speed up mount when power is cut and then > restored? If you write a checkpoint only on a clean unmount, then no. If you do it periodically during normal operation. then yes. -- dwmw2