Initial results with the new timing calculations looked weird. Turns
out different block sizes perform surprisingly when they all cost the
same!
Fortunately, erases are the one operation where per-byte vs per-op
timing doesn't really matter, so reverting to only per-byte timing
solves this problem. Now, erasing 2 4KiB blocks should take the same
time as 1 8KiB block, instead of twice as long.
---
Arguably, erase timing shouldn't be _strictly_ linear w.r.t. block size.
There's a reason denser storage usually ends up with larger block sizes
after all. But preventing the block size from messing with per-byte
timings is much more interesting from a filesystem design perspective.
It also matches the behavior of artificially increasing block size to
reduce block allocator pressure.
Unfortunately, this also raises concerns with read/prog timing when
varying geometry is involved... Should we stick to the per-byte timing
in such cases? Is there a better timing model out there without too much
additional complexity?
Christopher Haster
2a72dd1700