[PATCH 0/4] 8xx: Optimize TLB Miss code.

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Heiko Schocher <hs at denx.de> wrote on 2010/03/08 10:06:39:
>
> Hello Joakim,
>
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Heiko Schocher <hs at denx.de> 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.

Then I think it is possible NFS gets in the way for stable measurements. Anyone
have experience with running lmbench on NFS?

        Jocke