Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To:     Lars Persson <lists@bofh.nu>
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: <CADnJP=sJE6hpG6inp5Yu+5P2F-d0=6GP-2dAXJTmBOb_rPzgvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180701160757.138608453@linuxfoundation.org> <2076412.mQRaXglRsh@blindfold> <CADnJP=sJE6hpG6inp5Yu+5P2F-d0=6GP-2dAXJTmBOb_rPzgvw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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