From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lithops.sigma-star.at ([195.201.40.130]:38728 "EHLO lithops.sigma-star.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726157AbeIXMcu (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:32:50 -0400 From: Richard Weinberger To: Lars Persson Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Martinbayern@outlook.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 069/101] ubi: fastmap: Correctly handle interrupted erasures in EBA Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:32:12 +0200 Message-ID: <1657546.ePJIJPgWtA@blindfold> In-Reply-To: References: <20180701160757.138608453@linuxfoundation.org> <2076412.mQRaXglRsh@blindfold> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Lars, Am Sonntag, 23. September 2018, 15:49:42 CEST schrieb Lars Persson: > Hi Richard > > Sorry, I assumed this omission from -stable was a mistake. > > The timing for our boot increased from 45 seconds to 55 seconds on one > chip and 42 seconds to 48 seconds on another chip. The regression was > completely fixed by applying the extra patches. The way I see it the > first patch is a significant slow-down so the second patch is required > to restore performance. okay, this is not good. Let's put the performance patch also into -stable to get rid of that regression. Usually I'm rather conservative with adding non-trivial material to -stable. As history has shown, Fastmap is special. ;-) Out of interest, what flashes are these? I'm interested in page vs. erase size. Did you give UBIFS bulk-read try? Greg, I'll send another mail which will state what patches are needed. Thanks, //richard