Hello Wolfram, On Wednesday 09 December 2009 15:57:48 Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Do you have a way to measure performance penalties? Yes, I do. I am using an SCLPC test driver derived from a driver written or posted by Grant Likely named mpc5200-localplus-test. This gives me some useful output about the SCLPC BestComm FIFO read throughput. Additional to that I'm running I relatively dumb ATA stress test writing large files to an ext3 that gives me the data rate, as well as an NFS mount where I read data from. I will now run all three tests in a few combinations, those that do not crash my system with the old setup, adding NFS writes and ATA reads. I will post the numbers here as soon as I'm done, please give me 2 or 3 days, and as soon as I have the confidence they reflect the reality at least somewhat. > I know that stability comes before performance, still I am wondering > as it looks to me that the most interesting features are simply > switched off. We are seeing the same problem in our device, but having a return rate of almost 100% due to corrupt file systems that can not be repaired in the field is no alternative. But, something that never happened before, the system is now running SCLPC read, ATA write and NFS read for more that 20 hours without any crash. That's an argument. Probably the XLB setup has to be done in the U-Boot anyway, and here the configuration can be flexible enough to enable those positive features on boards that use only component that do not conflict. The only thing left is the the cache coherency switch in the kernel config. Roman -- Roman Fietze Telemotive AG Büro Mühlhausen Breitwiesen 73347 Mühlhausen Tel.: +49(0)7335/18493-45 http://www.telemotive.de _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev