On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 18:35 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 03.10.2013 18:00, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy: > > On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 17:53 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > >> Am 03.10.2013 17:27, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy: > >>> On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 17:08 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > >>>> Am 03.10.2013 17:00, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy: > >>>>> On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 15:55 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > >>>>>> If no free PEBs are available refill_wl_user_pool() must not > >>>>>> return with -ENOSPC immediately. > >>>>>> It has to block till produce_free_peb() produced a free PEB. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Reported-and-Tested-by: Richard Genoud <richard.gen...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <rich...@nod.at> > >>>>> > >>>>> What is pool size, I wonder? > >>>> > >>>> Currently it's 25 (UBI_FM_WL_POOL_SIZE). > >>>> If experience shows that 25 is too low/big we can change this constant. > >>>> Maybe it's also worth making them configurable... > >>> > >>> I if it is a possible scenario that this function will not return until > >>> 25 (or even 10) PEBs are erased? > >>> > >> > >> Sure. It will try to gain up to 25 PEBs but return if it gets less. > >> That's why a pool has a current and a max size. > > > > So if erasing speed is say, 250ms, then it would take 6.25 seconds? > > Only in the very worst case if we have to call 25 times produce_free_peb(). > > Of course we could add a check to return immediately if produce_free_peb() > got called a few times in series. > But I really would like to wait with such performance tweaks until fastmap > is more mature.
OK, but how about at least adding a comment talking about this unlikely scenario? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
