Hi Laurent, I found that pretty hard to believe.
What are you measuring exactly? Speed of replies? If so it's explainable since the TSECs use NAPI. Regards Pantelis On 2/14/06, Laurent Lagrange <lagrange at fr.oleane.com> wrote: > > > Hello, > > I work on a cutom MPC8541 board with Linux 2.6.9. > The kernel activates the L1 cache (instructions and data) > and the L2 cache (entirely used as cache and not as sram). > > I configure > 1 FCC (FCC1), > 2 TSECs with or without NAPI (no effect) but without stashing in L2 sram. > All PHYs are automatically configured in 100MB full duplex. > > eth0: Gianfar Ethernet Controller Version 1.1, 00:10:cd:48:48:e0 > eth0: Running with NAPI disabled > eth0: 64/64 RX/TX BD ring size > eth1: Gianfar Ethernet Controller Version 1.1, 00:10:cd:48:48:e1 > eth1: Running with NAPI disabled > eth1: 64/64 RX/TX BD ring size > eth2: FCC ENET Version custom, 00:10:cd:48:48:e2 > > Then I launch 3 simple TCP servers, one on each ports. > > From remote machines I runs 3 TCP clients. > The client sends messages of 1000 bytes, > The server receives and echoes the message > The client receives the echoed message, check the content > and sends a new message again. > > The result is that the 2 TSECs are 2 times slower than the FCC. > > If I run a "top" application on the board, I use less than 10% of the CPU > Each port consumes about 1/3 of the CPU. > > Any idea on how to configure the gianfar driver ? > > Thanks > Laurent > > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-embedded mailing list > Linuxppc-embedded at ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/attachments/20060214/cc1e38c0/attachment.htm
