Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756624Ab0HINyf (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:54:35 -0400 Received: from www84.your-server.de ([213.133.104.84]:50199 "EHLO www84.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756548Ab0HINye (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:54:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add quick erase format option From: Stefani Seibold To: dedekind1@gmail.com Cc: David Woodhouse , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , Artem Bityutskiy , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , "Enzinger, Robert (EXT-Other - DE/Munich)" In-Reply-To: <1281353344.2332.8.camel@brekeke> References: <1281342353-18180-1-git-send-email-stefani@seibold.net> <1281343038.12908.25.camel@localhost> <1281343974.18398.13.camel@wall-e.seibold.net> <1281353344.2332.8.camel@brekeke> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:37:07 +0200 Message-ID: <1281361027.19869.40.camel@wall-e.seibold.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: stefani@seibold.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3981 Lines: 98 Am Montag, den 09.08.2010, 14:29 +0300 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy: > On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 10:52 +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote: > > Am Montag, den 09.08.2010, 09:37 +0100 schrieb David Woodhouse: > > > On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 09:25 +0100, stefani@seibold.net wrote: > > > > From: Stefani Seibold > > > > > > > > This patch add a quick format option which skips erasing of already erased > > > > flash blocks. This is useful for first time production environments where > > > > the flash arrived erased. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefani Seibold > > > > > > This scares me, given the lengths we had to go to in JFFS2 to cope with > > > blocks which *look* like they're erased, but which actually start losing > > > data as soon as you start writing to them because the erase didn't > > > complete. > > > > > > > I know the drawback. This is why it is only an option which must be > > enabled. And in most use cases there is a subsequent ubimkvol, which > > will fail if the flash is not correct initialized. > > > > Flash are normally delivered erased. So this save in our production > > environment (Nokia Siemens Networks) about 5 minutes per device (256 MB > > NOR CFI Flash). > > > > The old JFFS2 was very fast to install the first time on a flash, it was > > only a simple mount of the MTD partition. > > Not sure what you do, but both UBI and UBIFS auto-format flash if it is > empty, and attaching empty flash should be very fast. > I was never able to mount UBIFS without a previous ubimkvol, despite the flash is already erased. > But yes, the first volume creation ioctl will block until everything is > erased, although this is just an implementation issue and in theory, > fixable. > Here are my timing results for mounting an empty flash as UBIFS: ubiattach /dev/ubi_ctrl -m 5 -d 1 --> 2.023 sec ubimkvol /dev/ubi1 -m -N flash --> 294.574 sec mount -t ubifs -o sync ubi1:flash /mnt --> 0.221 sec or ubiformat /dev/mtd5 --> 299.111 sec ubiattach /dev/ubi_ctrl -m 5 -d 1 --> 0.129 sec ubimkvol /dev/ubi1 -m -N flash --> 1.784 sec mount -t ubifs -o sync ubi1:flash /mnt --> 0.220 sec So there is no real benefit between an empty flash and a formated flash. And this are the timing results for formating and mounting an empty flash with my patched ubiformat tool: ubiformat /dev/mtd5 -E --> 5.475 sec ubiattach /dev/ubi_ctrl -m 5 -d 1 --> 0.130 sec ubimkvol /dev/ubi1 -m -N flash --> 1.699 sec mount -t ubifs -o sync ubi1:flash /mnt --> 0.220 sec As you can see this is 296,818 vs. 7,522 or 40 times faster! But maybe i do something wrong. Could you explain this? > > Which the quick format option i have now only a slightly first time > > installation overhead compared to JFFS2. Without this option the > > overhead is more than 5 minutes. > > Are you flashing an UBI image in production? Then what you can do if you > want to be faster is to flash only the blocks which contain image date, > and leave the rest intact, UBI will erase them and write EC header to > them when you first boot the device. > No, we only initialize the flash, mount the UBIFS it and copy files. > So I think it is better to add an --pristine-flash option, or something > like this. In this case ubiformat won't erase anything, and will assume > everything is 0xFFed without reading. This should be faster and I think > is better to do. > My patch assumes nothing, it check if the EC header is 0xff and i think this is safer than your suggestion. My patch skips the erase if all bytes in the header are 0xff skip, otherwise erase it. - Stefani -- 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/