From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:52:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from extgw-uk.mips.com ([IPv6:::ffff:62.254.210.129]:18185 "EHLO bacchus.net.dhis.org") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:51:41 +0100 Received: from dea.linux-mips.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bacchus.net.dhis.org (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j6B7qTMj002065; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:52:30 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by dea.linux-mips.net (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j6ANEKqT020991; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:14:20 +0100 Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:14:19 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Alex Gonzalez Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: Benchmarking RM9000 Message-ID: <20050710231419.GA28518@linux-mips.org> References: <20050708091711Z8226352-3678+1954@linux-mips.org> <20050708120238.GA2816@linux-mips.org> <1120825549.28569.949.camel@euskadi.packetvision> <20050708130131.GC2816@linux-mips.org> <1120833749.28569.965.camel@euskadi.packetvision> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1120833749.28569.965.camel@euskadi.packetvision> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 8425 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 03:42:29PM +0100, Alex Gonzalez wrote: > The performance of our video application is well below our expectations. > We are still doing some profiling work on it, but we are also looking at > other possibilities. > > What other benchmarking tool would you recommend? > > Currently it's a NFS mounted system, but even if we could use a block > device the access speed wouldn't be more than 1.5 Mbps, so that is a > limitation for the benchmark. As a shot into the dark ... Make sure you exploit the RM9000's write-gathering capabilities when writing into the frame buffer. If the frame buffer happens to be on a PCI device you're probably performing uncached writes which will slow down the thing to a crawl. Ralf