From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ocean.emcraft.com (ocean.emcraft.com [213.221.7.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A550DDEA3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:06:02 +1000 (EST) From: Yuri Tikhonov To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc44x: support for 256K PAGE_SIZE Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:03:28 +0400 References: <200710181108.19413.yur@emcraft.com> <200710191937.23638.yur@emcraft.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200710192003.28143.yur@emcraft.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Friday 19 October 2007 19:48, Kumar Gala wrote: > > PAGE_SIZE = 4K: > > P = 66 MBps; > > > > PAGE_SIZE = 16K: > > P = 145 MBps; > > > > PAGE_SIZE = 64K: > > P = 196 MBps; > > > > PAGE_SIZE = 256K: > > P = 217 MBps. > > Is this all in kernel space? or is there a user space aspect to the > benchmark? The situation here is that the Linux RAID driver does a lot of complex things with the pages (strips of array) using CPU before submitting these pages to h/w. Here is where the most time is spent. Thus, increasing the PAGE_SIZE value we reduce the number of these complex algorithms calls needed to process the whole test (writing the fixed number of MBytes to RAID array). So, there are no user space aspects. -- Yuri Tikhonov, Senior Software Engineer Emcraft Systems, www.emcraft.com