public inbox for linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@sgi.com>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Linux-ia64] Re: PCI DAC routines for SN
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 23:13:08 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-linux-ia64-105590701905516@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-linux-ia64-105590701905493@msgid-missing>

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 11:43:45PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>    > Eh? You tell me that first.  You totally ignore my performance points
>    > and this makes it very difficult to discuss this issue with you.
>    
>    I understand that the performance will be lower, but out of curiosity,
>    do you know by how much?  Have you tried running (say) qlogicfc with
>    32 and 64 bit consistent addresses to measure the difference?
>    
> Every descriptor fetch will use two address cycles instead of
> one, I mean, do the math.

Ok, there are _many_ cards that can handle 64 bit coherent pointers,
including qlogic 1040, 1240, 1080, 1280, 12160, 2100, 2200, 2300,
2310, 2342, adaptec/jni 1160 (and followons, presumably).  The extra
address cycle is *rarely* an issue under most loads (e.g. on a 64k
scsi i/o, using SAC saves you 2 or 3 cycles out of 8000).  The
advantage of using 64 bit mappings is that you save 32 bit mappings
for cards that really need them.

So the penalty for using DAC comes down to ~.0375% for a 64k I/O, and
the benefit is that you don't have to use 32 bit mappings (which can
be scarce on some platforms).

In short, please reconsider your opposition to adding a
pci_dac_page_to_consistent type call.  It's an easy thing to add...

Thanks,
Jesse


  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-04-24 23:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-04-22 22:34 [Linux-ia64] Re: PCI DAC routines for SN David Mosberger
2002-04-22 22:39 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-22 23:07 ` David Mosberger
2002-04-22 23:40 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-23  1:34 ` Grant Grundler
2002-04-23 21:11 ` Grant Grundler
2002-04-24  4:04 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-24  5:49 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-24  5:50 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-24 16:13 ` Grant Grundler
2002-04-24 17:39 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-24 17:40 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-24 19:45 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-24 23:13 ` Jesse Barnes [this message]
2002-04-24 23:53 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-25  0:08 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-25  0:11 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-25  0:17 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-25  0:21 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-25  0:36 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-25  0:43 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-25  1:00 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-25  1:01 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-25  1:22 ` Jesse Barnes

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=marc-linux-ia64-105590701905516@msgid-missing \
    --to=jbarnes@sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox