On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 08:32:12AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
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.
Thank you, as I am totally confused here...
greg k-h