Hi, On Tue, Jul 12 2011, Manoj Iyer wrote: > btw only the 1st write was slower, subsequent writes looks ok. > [..] > I have attached the output of flashbench and the time test to > > http://launchpad.net/bugs/773524 > [..] > == Finding the number of open erase blocks == > u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=$[4 * 1024 * > 1024] --blocksize=$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0 --open-au-nr=2 > 4MiB 6.36M/s > 2MiB 6.24M/s > 1MiB 6.17M/s > 512KiB 6.19M/s > 256KiB 6.22M/s > u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ > [..] > ====== AFTER PATCH ======== > [..] > == Finding the number of open erase blocks == > u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=$[4 * 1024 * > 1024] --blocksize=$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0 --open-au-nr=2 > [sudo] password for u: > 4MiB 5.49M/s > 2MiB 6.22M/s > 1MiB 6.22M/s > 512KiB 6.21M/s > 256KiB 6.21M/s > u@u:~/flash/flashbench$
That's interesting. Arnd, any idea why only the first test of the flashbench run would be slower after the patch? Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball <[email protected]> <http://printf.net/> One Laptop Per Child -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
