On 2012-06-14, at 3:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > My feeling is that we would actually benefit much more from the > erase block alignment than from the context for the large files. > > I think this is something we can do in the Linaro storage team. > We actually have plans to also put the erase block size in the swap > header, so we should be able to use the same code in mke2fs and mkswap, > and potentially others. What we discussed in the storage team meeting > today is that we start out by making ext4 aware of the erase block > size through the superblock and aligning extents for large files to > erase block boundaries. Note that there are already the s_raid_stride and s_raid_stripe_width, used by the ext4 allocator to align the start and size of allocations on RAID systems. The erase block size would be like s_raid_stride (the minimum amount of data to allocate and write contiguously). I don't know that there is a benefit to having a separate erase block size, since in the end it means the same as s_raid_stride to the allocator - make sure allocations/writes are aligned and sized on multiples of this. Cheers, Andreas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
