Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> wrote on 2010/03/04 17:30:07: > > 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 ...
OK > > > 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. No, if you can't find anything in there, I won't either. 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 Jocke _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
