From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.s.singh@gmail.com>,
rohitvdongre@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: UBIL design doc
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 11:06:22 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005121103010.3401@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1273650099.22706.41.camel@localhost>
On Wed, 12 May 2010, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 21:17 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > Also chaining has a tradeoff. The more chains you need to walk the
> > closer you get to the point where you are equally bad as a full scan.
>
> Well, every new chain member reduces the superblock wear speed by order
> 2, so I the chain would have 2-4 eraseblocks in most cases, I guess,
> which is not bad.
>
> In the opposite, moving the SB 3-4 eraseblocks further only reduces the
> load merely by factor 3-4.
Right, but having the flexibility of moving the super block in the
first 16 or 32 blocks is not going to hurt the attach time
significantly. I'm not against the super block and chain design, I
merily fight fixed address designs.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-12 9:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-08 19:39 UBIL design doc Brijesh Singh
2010-05-10 7:15 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-05-10 10:31 ` Brijesh Singh
2010-05-11 19:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-05-12 7:03 ` Brijesh Singh
2010-05-12 7:14 ` Brijesh Singh
2010-05-12 9:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-05-12 9:46 ` Brijesh Singh
2010-05-12 7:41 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-05-12 8:03 ` Brijesh Singh
2010-05-12 8:35 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-05-12 9:49 ` Brijesh Singh
2010-05-12 10:01 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-05-12 10:25 ` Brijesh Singh
2010-05-12 10:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-05-13 7:10 ` Brijesh Singh
2010-05-12 9:06 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2010-05-12 9:31 ` Artem Bityutskiy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.2.00.1005121103010.3401@localhost.localdomain \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=brijesh.s.singh@gmail.com \
--cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=rohitvdongre@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox