From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:27:07 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Stefan Agner Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] mtd: nand: vf610_nfc: Freescale NFC for VF610, MPC5125 and others Message-ID: <20150618182707.GA2254@breakpoint.cc> References: <1427300909-20825-1-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> <1427300909-20825-2-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> <20150603130825.GA23991@breakpoint.cc> <20150609200751.GC5720@breakpoint.cc> <32a7fe8d8df87dfe35ea50c582077c78@agner.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32a7fe8d8df87dfe35ea50c582077c78@agner.ch> Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com, aaron@tastycactus.com, pawel.moll@arm.com, marb@ixxat.de, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, shawn.guo@linaro.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, kernel@pengutronix.de, galak@codeaurora.org, computersforpeace@gmail.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, bpringlemeir@nbsps.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:02:03PM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2015-06-09 22:07, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > yeah, do you have any numbers by chance? > > Just reevaluated the "performance optimizations". On a VF610 SoC (with > L2 cache) the improvements increase performance by 2.5% and below. On a > VF500 SoC (without L2 cache) it seems to have slightly more impact, up > to 4%. Overall, it seems to influence write more than read. it could have something to do with the CPU clock and how long it is blocked due to the sync operation. > Back then, when I implemented the improvements it certainly had a bigger > impact. I don't have strong opinion on that... Thanks for doing that. If you could take those numbers, put them in a table like with/without relaxed and so one, write how you got them (modprobe bla) and make it part of the commit message then everybody could see about how much we talk here. Thanks again. > -- > Stefan Sebastian From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sebastian@breakpoint.cc (Sebastian Andrzej Siewior) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:27:07 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v4 1/6] mtd: nand: vf610_nfc: Freescale NFC for VF610, MPC5125 and others In-Reply-To: <32a7fe8d8df87dfe35ea50c582077c78@agner.ch> References: <1427300909-20825-1-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> <1427300909-20825-2-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> <20150603130825.GA23991@breakpoint.cc> <20150609200751.GC5720@breakpoint.cc> <32a7fe8d8df87dfe35ea50c582077c78@agner.ch> Message-ID: <20150618182707.GA2254@breakpoint.cc> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:02:03PM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2015-06-09 22:07, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > yeah, do you have any numbers by chance? > > Just reevaluated the "performance optimizations". On a VF610 SoC (with > L2 cache) the improvements increase performance by 2.5% and below. On a > VF500 SoC (without L2 cache) it seems to have slightly more impact, up > to 4%. Overall, it seems to influence write more than read. it could have something to do with the CPU clock and how long it is blocked due to the sync operation. > Back then, when I implemented the improvements it certainly had a bigger > impact. I don't have strong opinion on that... Thanks for doing that. If you could take those numbers, put them in a table like with/without relaxed and so one, write how you got them (modprobe bla) and make it part of the commit message then everybody could see about how much we talk here. Thanks again. > -- > Stefan Sebastian From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] mtd: nand: vf610_nfc: Freescale NFC for VF610, MPC5125 and others Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:27:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20150618182707.GA2254@breakpoint.cc> References: <1427300909-20825-1-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> <1427300909-20825-2-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> <20150603130825.GA23991@breakpoint.cc> <20150609200751.GC5720@breakpoint.cc> <32a7fe8d8df87dfe35ea50c582077c78@agner.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32a7fe8d8df87dfe35ea50c582077c78-XLVq0VzYD2Y@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Stefan Agner Cc: dwmw2-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org, computersforpeace-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, boris.brezillon-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, aaron-yuhzfaV+M/Wz3Dx2OeFgIA@public.gmane.org, marb-Z4QKGCRq86k@public.gmane.org, pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, ijc+devicetree-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-mtd-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, kernel-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org, galak-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org, shawn.guo-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, bpringlemeir-ygJ1pmMJ17cAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:02:03PM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2015-06-09 22:07, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > yeah, do you have any numbers by chance? > > Just reevaluated the "performance optimizations". On a VF610 SoC (with > L2 cache) the improvements increase performance by 2.5% and below. On a > VF500 SoC (without L2 cache) it seems to have slightly more impact, up > to 4%. Overall, it seems to influence write more than read. it could have something to do with the CPU clock and how long it is blocked due to the sync operation. > Back then, when I implemented the improvements it certainly had a bigger > impact. I don't have strong opinion on that... Thanks for doing that. If you could take those numbers, put them in a table like with/without relaxed and so one, write how you got them (modprobe bla) and make it part of the commit message then everybody could see about how much we talk here. Thanks again. > -- > Stefan Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756230AbbFRS1d (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:27:33 -0400 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([80.244.247.6]:42067 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751674AbbFRS10 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:27:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:27:07 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Stefan Agner Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org, computersforpeace@gmail.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com, aaron@tastycactus.com, marb@ixxat.de, pawel.moll@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, kernel@pengutronix.de, galak@codeaurora.org, shawn.guo@linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, bpringlemeir@nbsps.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] mtd: nand: vf610_nfc: Freescale NFC for VF610, MPC5125 and others Message-ID: <20150618182707.GA2254@breakpoint.cc> References: <1427300909-20825-1-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> <1427300909-20825-2-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> <20150603130825.GA23991@breakpoint.cc> <20150609200751.GC5720@breakpoint.cc> <32a7fe8d8df87dfe35ea50c582077c78@agner.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32a7fe8d8df87dfe35ea50c582077c78@agner.ch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:02:03PM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2015-06-09 22:07, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > yeah, do you have any numbers by chance? > > Just reevaluated the "performance optimizations". On a VF610 SoC (with > L2 cache) the improvements increase performance by 2.5% and below. On a > VF500 SoC (without L2 cache) it seems to have slightly more impact, up > to 4%. Overall, it seems to influence write more than read. it could have something to do with the CPU clock and how long it is blocked due to the sync operation. > Back then, when I implemented the improvements it certainly had a bigger > impact. I don't have strong opinion on that... Thanks for doing that. If you could take those numbers, put them in a table like with/without relaxed and so one, write how you got them (modprobe bla) and make it part of the commit message then everybody could see about how much we talk here. Thanks again. > -- > Stefan Sebastian