Hello Joakim, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote on 2010/03/04 13:16:56: >> From: Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> >> To: h...@denx.de >> Cc: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se>, Klaus-Jürgen >> <heyd...@kieback-peter.de>, linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org, Scott Wood >> <scottw...@freescale.com> >> Date: 2010/03/04 13:17 >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] 8xx: Optimize TLB Miss code. >> >> Dear Heiko, >> >> thanks for running the tests. >> >> In message <4b8f8bb4.6070...@denx.de> you wrote: >>> here the results: >>> >>> run version >>> >>> 1-4 2.6.33-rc6 without your patches >>> 5-8 2.6.33-rc6 with all your patches >>> 9-12 2.6.33-rc6 with patches 1,2 and 4 (without 8xx: Don't touch ACCESSED >> when no SWAP) >>> 13-16 2.6.33-rc6 with all your patches and CONFIG_PIN_TLB=y >> So CONFIG_PIN_TLB imroves the performance as expected, while the other >> patches don;t show any measurable improvememt - or am I reading the >> results incorrectly? > > Close but not quite. What stands out most 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 31.8 141.0 184.0 1165.7 > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 141.2 184.2 1165.3 > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 141.3 184.3 1165.6 > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 141.3 184.2 1166.2 > > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 141.0 171.8 1100.5 No L2 > cache? > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 141.0 171.8 1102.5 No L2 > cache? > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 141.0 171.8 1101.7 No L2 > cache? > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 141.0 171.8 1101.6 No L2 > cache? > > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 141.1 173.4 1149.1 No L2 > cache? > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 141.1 173.4 1149.0 No L2 > cache? > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.7 141.1 173.4 1148.7 No L2 > cache? > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.7 141.1 173.4 1148.2 No L2 > cache? > > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 171.1 171.7 1099.8 No L2 > cache? > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 171.1 171.6 1100.5 No L2 > cache? > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.7 171.0 171.7 1101.0 No L2 > cache? > tqm8xx Linux 2.6.33- 66 31.8 171.0 171.6 1101.3 No L2 > cache? > > > Besides the numbers, note how the first group doesn't have a Guesses entry. > Is there something odd with the results for the first group?
Hmm.. just to be safe, I made this test again, but it shows also no entry in "Guesses" ... Hardware, Linux Source, rootFS, lmbench sources, all the same ... > Also, since you are using MODULES, patch 2 is nullified. > Patch 1 is very minor and should not show I think. > This leaves patches 3 & 4. > There appears to be something funny with patch 3,Don't touch ACCESSED when no > SWAP, as > it yields bad numbers for Prot Fault so perhaps I am missing something that > needs ACCESSED > even if NO_SWAP. Perhaps a someone that knows MM in Linux knows? > Is there any messages in the kernel log(dmesg)? I couldn;t find something in the output with dmesg ... but if you want this output, I can send it to you. bye Heiko -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
