From: "Martin K. Petersen" Subject: Re: Some interesting input from a flash manufacturer Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:42:12 -0500 Message-ID: References: <4F5135F0.6090100@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Lukas Czerner To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]:27460 "EHLO rcsinet15.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758314Ab2CFSmS (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2012 13:42:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4F5135F0.6090100@redhat.com> (Eric Sandeen's message of "Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:04:48 -0600") Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >>>>> "Eric" == Eric Sandeen writes: >> We also talked about ways that we might right some application notes >> so that handset OEM's understood how to use mke2fs parameters to >> optimize their file systems for different types of flash systems, and >> perhaps ways that the eMMC spec could be enhanced so that key >> parameters such as erase block size, flash page size, and translation >> table granularity could be passed back to the block layer, and made >> available to file system and mkfs. Eric> Now that would be nice. Could some of this just be piggybacked on Eric> the existing preferred_io_size-type geometry interfaces? So far the barrier has been that the flash manufacturers did not want to disclose the erase block size, etc. That's why the original standardization efforts in that department were shelved. If the devices actually start exporting this information I'll be happy to put it in the topology. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering