From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from a.relay.invitel.net (a.relay.invitel.net [62.77.203.3]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60498B7CA6 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:06:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgw2.invitel.net (mailgw2.invitel.net [91.82.208.35]) by a.relay.invitel.net (Invitel Core SMTP Transmitter) with ESMTP id 880E511A4BD for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:06:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:06:39 +0100 From: Heiko Schocher Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] 8xx: Optimize TLB Miss code. In-reply-to: To: Joakim Tjernlund Message-id: <4B94BE1F.8030203@denx.de> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <4B8E17A7.10509@denx.de> <4B8E3582.8060003@denx.de> <4B8F8BB4.6070201@denx.de> <20100304121656.6758A28BBC@gemini.denx.de> <4B8FE00F.4030405@denx.de> <4B94AB55.3020308@denx.de> Cc: Scott Wood , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Wolfgang Denk Reply-To: hs@denx.de List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello Joakim, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > Heiko Schocher wrote on 2010/03/08 08:46:29: >> Hello Joakim, >> >> Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> [...] >>> What would be interesting is to skip patch 3 and turn off >>> MODULES add PIN_TLB and compare that against your unpatched .33 but >>> with MODULES off and PIN_TLB on >> run version >> >> 1-4 Linux2.6.33-rc without module support and PIN_TLB=on >> 5-8 Linux2.6.33-rc without module support and PIN_TLB=on + patches 1,2,4 >> >> L M B E N C H 3 . 0 S U M M A R Y >> ------------------------------------ >> (Alpha software, do not distribute) > > hmm, these results varies a lot. The only stable result I can see is: > >> Memory latencies in nanoseconds - smaller is better >> (WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs) >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Host OS Mhz L1 $ L2 $ Main mem Rand mem Guesses >> --------- ------------- --- ---- ---- -------- -------- ------- >> tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.7 183.2 184.0 1163.0 No L2 cache? >> tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.7 183.2 184.0 1164.8 No L2 cache? >> tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.7 183.2 184.0 1163.2 No L2 cache? >> tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.7 183.2 183.8 1163.7 No L2 cache? >> tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 172.4 173.2 1147.3 No L2 cache? >> tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 172.5 173.2 1148.3 No L2 cache? >> tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 172.5 173.1 1146.9 No L2 cache? >> tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 172.5 173.2 1147.3 No L2 cache? > > I don't see why the other results vary so much. Are you using NFS or having much network > traffic? I use NFS. bye Heiko -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany