Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752959AbaLGJtt (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 04:49:49 -0500 Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143]:65275 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752849AbaLGJtr (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 04:49:47 -0500 Message-ID: <548422B8.5080307@nod.at> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 10:49:44 +0100 From: Richard Weinberger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tanya Brokhman , dedekind1@gmail.com CC: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] UBI: Fastmap: Make ubi_refill_pools() fair References: <1416835236-25185-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1416835236-25185-7-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <5481F1A1.50609@codeaurora.org> <54821BF6.8010000@nod.at> <548407F0.90209@codeaurora.org> In-Reply-To: <548407F0.90209@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 07.12.2014 um 08:55 schrieb Tanya Brokhman: > Hi Richard > > On 12/5/2014 10:56 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>>> -/** >>>> - * refill_wl_user_pool - refills all the fastmap pool used by ubi_wl_get_peb. >>>> - * @ubi: UBI device description object >>>> - */ >>>> -static void refill_wl_user_pool(struct ubi_device *ubi) >>>> -{ >>>> - struct ubi_fm_pool *pool = &ubi->fm_pool; >>>> + pool->pebs[pool->size] = e->pnum; >>>> + pool->size++; >>>> + } else >>>> + enough++; >>>> >>>> - return_unused_pool_pebs(ubi, pool); >>>> + if (wl_pool->size < wl_pool->max_size) { >>>> + if (!ubi->free.rb_node || >>>> + (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < 5)) >>>> + break; >>>> >>>> - for (pool->size = 0; pool->size < pool->max_size; pool->size++) { >>>> - pool->pebs[pool->size] = __wl_get_peb(ubi); >>>> - if (pool->pebs[pool->size] < 0) >>>> + e = find_wl_entry(ubi, &ubi->free, WL_FREE_MAX_DIFF); >>>> + self_check_in_wl_tree(ubi, e, &ubi->free); >>>> + rb_erase(&e->u.rb, &ubi->free); >>>> + ubi->free_count--; >>> >>> why don't you use wl_get_peb() here? >> >> Because wl_get_peb() is not equivalent to the above code. >> We want a PEB to be used for wear-leveling not for "end users" like UBIFS. > > sorry, my mistake. I meant wl_get_wle() (the new function). the only diff between wl_get_wle() and the above is that you use find_wl_entry() and wl_get_wle() uses > find_mean_wl_entry() and takes the anchor into consideration. So I;m trying to understand why wl_get_wle() isn't good here? wl_get_wle() uses find_mean_wl_entry() which returns a PEB to be used for "end users". Please see the 3rd parameter to find_wl_entry(). For "end users" a medium worn out PEB is good enough. Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/