From: "Joakim Tjernlund" <Joakim.Tjernlund@lumentis.se>
To: "Dan Malek" <dan@embeddededge.com>
Cc: <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>
Subject: Re: MPC860 reorder and invalidate dcache
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 13:40:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <002f01c245e2$de2223e0$0200a8c0@telia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3D5D88C5.9030402@embeddededge.com
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > I wonder if the MPC860 really can reorder I/O memory accesses?
>
> I don't believe so. I have sloppily written code that would have
> shown problems if it did, and have never seen it occur.
>
> > .... affects performance somewhat.
> > Is the wmb() required or can I skip it?
>
> Can you actually quantify the performance difference and is it important?
I could do a number of "time cp file1 file2" to measure the difference.
We do logging every 15 min and SW upgrades. It would be nice if this went a little faster.
> I would strongly recommend using all of the proper memory/IO barriers since
> you never know what will happen with a new version of processor. It is
> also nice to do this for someone that may wish to use the code in a more
> general manner. :-)
Point taken, but this is in the mtd flash map file which defines the layout of our flash in our custom board
so I don't think there is much to use in a general manner.
I may have some general changes to the enet.c file though, but these needs cleaning first.
>
> > Is there a faster way to invalidate the dcache for a big(256KB) area than using invalidate_dcache_range().
> > The area is PAGE aligned.
>
> There are cache operations using SPRs unique to the 8xx that can do this, however,
> I'm not sure it saves much over using the standard PowerPC functions. They are mostly
> useful during initialization and for special static MMU applications.
OK, maybe it would be faster to just invalidate the whole dcache?
I read somewhere that the 'sync' instruction is an expensive one and I don't understand
why it's used it in invalidate_dcache_range()
Finally(if I may):
Our app consists of a lot of processes that mostly pass messages(UNIX sockets) between eachother.
Do you think it's better to run the CPU in 66/66 MHz or (as we do today) 80/40 MHz?
Would the "pinned TLB" mode be helpful(we have plenty of memory,128MB)?
Jocke
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-17 11:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-12 21:33 linuxppc_2_4_dev tree Cameron, Steve
2002-08-16 15:50 ` MPC860 reorder and invalidate dcache Joakim Tjernlund
2002-08-16 23:20 ` Dan Malek
2002-08-17 11:40 ` Joakim Tjernlund [this message]
2002-08-17 13:33 ` Dan Malek
2002-08-17 14:21 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2002-08-17 16:19 ` Dan Malek
2002-08-18 22:04 ` Joakim Tjernlund
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='002f01c245e2$de2223e0$0200a8c0@telia.com' \
--to=joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se \
--cc=dan@embeddededge.com \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.