On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Steve Rae srae@broadcom.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:19:39AM -0700, Steve Rae wrote:
- increase the size of the fill buffer
- testing has shown a 10x improvement when the sparse image has large CHUNK_TYPE_FILL chunks
Signed-off-by: Steve Rae srae@broadcom.com
Changes in v2: None
common/image-sparse.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/image-sparse.c b/common/image-sparse.c index 9632c6f..ddf5772 100644 --- a/common/image-sparse.c +++ b/common/image-sparse.c @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
/*
- Copyright (c) 2009, Google Inc.
- All rights reserved.
@@ -46,6 +45,10 @@
#include <linux/math64.h>
+#ifndef CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_FILLBUF_SIZE +#define CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_FILLBUF_SIZE (1024 * 512)
I wonder whether that would be better to just put the number of blocks there.
I wanted to imply that this is not just a random value (even though the code does
handle values which are not a multiple of the info->blksz)
Thanks, Steve
NAND blocks are much larger than MMC's, so the gain benefit might not be even.
Maxime
-- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com