From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Troy Kisky Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 00/16] net: fec: cleanup and fixes Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:57:15 -0700 Message-ID: <56CF245B.8050504@boundarydevices.com> References: <1456360619-24390-1-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com> <87oab518wo.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, B38611@freescale.com, fabio.estevam@freescale.com, andrew@lunn.ch, stillcompiling@gmail.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, arnd@arndb.de, sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com, laci@boundarydevices.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, l.stach@pengutronix.de, shawnguo@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, tremyfr@gmail.com To: Holger Schurig Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f175.google.com ([209.85.192.175]:33039 "EHLO mail-pf0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932407AbcBYP5S (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:57:18 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f175.google.com with SMTP id q63so34789844pfb.0 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 07:57:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87oab518wo.fsf@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2/25/2016 1:39 AM, Holger Schurig wrote: > Hi Troy, > > what is the general aim of your patches? Stability? Speed? Cleanup? > 1. Stability 2. performance 3. easier to read 4. more debug info The 2nd goal is very hard to measure. It seems function alignment changes swamp most any other improvements. I think that if the same measurement that I did were done with a different compiler, you would see different patches increased/decreased the BPS. But at least the overall trend on the patch set is positive. And each individual patch has been tested. I would like someone to test on a machine with 3 queues though. If you have a more accurate way to measure performance, please let me know. Also, if you know why freescale's bsp has so much better performance that would be a very welcome patch. Troy