From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Cochran Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] dpaa_eth: add support for hardware timestamping Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:57:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20180605135748.mlarwiyzf2oe27ax@localhost> References: <20180604070837.19265-1-yangbo.lu@nxp.com> <20180604070837.19265-10-yangbo.lu@nxp.com> <20180604134920.ezhe6jz5ntpnqyzj@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Y.b. Lu" Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Madalin-cristian Bucur , Rob Herring , Shawn Guo , "David S . Miller" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 03:35:28AM +0000, Y.b. Lu wrote: > [Y.b. Lu] Actually these timestamping codes affected DPAA networking performance in our previous performance test. > That's why we used ifdef for it. How much does time stamping hurt performance? If the time stamping is compiled in but not enabled at run time, does it still affect performace? Thanks, Richard