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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).