Performance on PowerQuicc8280 linux based
aldo lab
aldo.lab at gmail.com
Thu Nov 16 20:22:50 EST 2006
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 at 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
>
>
More information about the Linuxppc-embedded
mailing list