From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DJZ1z-0001Vb-GA for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:34:56 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DJYx6-0006cC-JP for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:29:59 +0200 Received: from halhoupro3.halliburton.com ([64.154.26.251]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:29:52 +0200 Received: from sergei.sharonov by halhoupro3.halliburton.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:29:52 +0200 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org From: Sergei Sharonov Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:28:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: news Subject: Re: long umount time List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, > Please, look at jffs2_gcd_mtd thread - does it eat a lot of CPU cycles > during these long unmounts ? I got the board in the oven running endurance test again.. I'll post results once I get hardware back. I got prior results captured in text file with Hyperterminal but the bloody thing has messed the text file (Dah!). From what I recall user and system times were close to 0, so I suppose nothing was eating CPU cycles. Sergei Sharonov