From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out.m-online.net (mail-out.m-online.net [212.18.0.9]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9DFB7C33 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 23:17:00 +1100 (EST) To: hs@denx.de From: Wolfgang Denk Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] 8xx: Optimize TLB Miss code. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: <4B8F8BB4.6070201@denx.de> References: <4B8E17A7.10509@denx.de> <4B8E3582.8060003@denx.de> <4B8F8BB4.6070201@denx.de> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:16:56 +0100 Message-Id: <20100304121656.6758A28BBC@gemini.denx.de> Cc: Scott Wood , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Dear Heiko, thanks for running the tests. In message <4B8F8BB4.6070201@denx.de> you wrote: > > here the results: > > run version > > 1-4 2.6.33-rc6 without your patches > 5-8 2.6.33-rc6 with all your patches > 9-12 2.6.33-rc6 with patches 1,2 and 4 (without 8xx: Don't touch ACCESSED when no SWAP) > 13-16 2.6.33-rc6 with all your patches and CONFIG_PIN_TLB=y So CONFIG_PIN_TLB imroves the performance as expected, while the other patches don;t show any measurable improvememt - or am I reading the results incorrectly? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de And now remains That we find out the cause of this effect, Or rather say, the cause of this defect... -- Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2