From: "aldo lab" <aldo.lab@gmail.com>
To: "Dan Malek" <dan@embeddedalley.com>
Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: Performance on PowerQuicc8280 linux based
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:22:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6e41d1460611160122u4f8163a1t4ba127ec8815067f@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F1EB2EA4-DF62-4825-84CF-C9E5497AEB09@embeddedalley.com>
If I remove the changes I'm not available to reach the previous
result, and to perform the test I use an external traffic generator (
Smartbit) and this has an hight precision.
So the problem in some way should be tied to cache but I don't know
what I can try.I blocked some critical function (in term of cpu
cycles) in istruction cache but I didn't obtained a good result
Let me know if you have some idea
Thanks
Aldo
On 11/15/06, Dan Malek <dan@embeddedalley.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Jeff Mock wrote:
>
> > I'm no big help, but the problem might be TLB related instead of cache
> > related. The performance of embedded PPCs with small TLBs requiring
> > software assist for TLB misses can be performance sensitive to TLB
> > misses.
>
> The 82xx is fully cache coherent and has BATs for
> mapping the kernel space. This is not a PPC with
> a small TLB, but rather one of the most efficient.
> The TLBs are not an issue, and I doubt the caches
> are as well.
>
> I don't know what kind of test is used to measure this
> performance, but the first thing you must always scrutinize
> are your testing methods and procedures. Just using
> a user application to measure network performance
> enables a large number of variables that must be
> properly understood and controlled. Some other
> thread could have switched in and stolen CPU cycles,
> you could have some sampling rate and time
> measurement hysteresis due to buffering,
> you need to find and control such things.
>
> Can you "undo" the changes and get the old
> results? That's the first thing I would verify,
> and then verify the results are repeatable.
> If that's the case, I'd carefully try to understand
> what this "unrelated" change really affects
> in terms of using CPU cycles.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Dan
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-16 9:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-15 14:54 Performance on PowerQuicc8280 linux based aldo lab
2006-11-15 16:21 ` Jeff Mock
2006-11-15 17:39 ` Dan Malek
2006-11-16 9:22 ` aldo lab [this message]
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=6e41d1460611160122u4f8163a1t4ba127ec8815067f@mail.gmail.com \
--to=aldo.lab@gmail.com \
--cc=dan@embeddedalley.com \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.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).