From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1OC7tc-0002xM-Ds for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 12 May 2010 09:06:28 +0000 Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 11:06:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: UBIL design doc In-Reply-To: <1273650099.22706.41.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <1273475736.2209.88.camel@localhost> <1273650099.22706.41.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Brijesh Singh , rohitvdongre@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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