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 1DLisj-0006QZ-J7 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:30:18 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DLimV-0004Fe-Iq for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:23:51 +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 ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:23:51 +0200 Received: from sergei.sharonov by halhoupro3.halliburton.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:23:51 +0200 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org From: Sergei Sharonov Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:22:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1113400225.23175.9.camel@sauron.oktetlabs.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: news Subject: Re: mounting jffs2 List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, > Believe me, if you'll write in 4K chunks, you'll effect much better > JFFS2 performance. I will try that. My log data is comming in 1 kB chunks, so in order to do 4 kB at a time I will have to implement some sort of buffering. > It isn't bug, it is a feature. To facilitate faster mount JFFS2 defers a > lot of work to the GC thread and performs this work just after mount. > You may read filesystem but can't write. Any writer will be blocked - in > your case on 11m10.058s time interval. Hmm.. ls is not a writer but it is blocked as well. > > Mount and touch were run immediately one after another. I think it may be > > related to the long umount time problem that I reported before. > Measure the time of unmount just after mount. If if is also around > 11m10.058s - this is a bug. Theoretically GC thread must forget its > deferred work and quit immediately. Doesn't seem to be the case. Continuing the previous test: # time mount /mnt/flash/ real 1m33.527s user 0m0.010s sys 1m33.471s # time touch /mnt/flash/junk real 11m26.228s user 0m0.010s sys 0m0.000s # # <------------- previous post ends here ---------- # # time umount /mnt/flash/ real 0m0.255s user 0m0.010s sys 0m0.240s # time mount /mnt/flash/ real 1m33.517s user 0m0.010s sys 1m33.431s # time umount /mnt/flash/ real 11m25.534s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.250s #