Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Joakim Tjernlund [mailto:joakim.tjernlund at lumentis.se] > Sent: Dienstag, 10. Dezember 2002 16:47 > To: Stephan Linke > Subject: RE: 8xx_io/enet.c > > > > > > Hi, > > > > just checked the mailing list for the patches. Looks like you > mean the 'copy > > large buffers' patch. > > I took the second version and applied it to fec.c too. > > It works fine on both devices. The only thing that confused me was the > > discussion about the possibility of inconsistent data. > > Thats the one. However there is a small bug in version 2 w.r.t when the > invalidate_dcache_range call is made. In the second version the > call is made > AFTER the buffer has been received as opposed in my first version > where the > call is made BEFORE handing over the buffer to the CPM. That may in some > rare case corrupt the packet. See > http://lists.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-embedded/200211/msg00120.html > > This is only relevant for 8xx, 82xx don't have to invalidate. > > > But we didn't noticed > > any performance impact when testing it with IP packets. > > Didn't you get any performace increase after appling my patch? > If you did, could you send me your performace numbers? > Did you try the first version also? If so,any performance > difference compared with version 2? > > Jocke
Indeed we had a better performance with the patch applied to fec.c (100base-Tx). Unfortunately I don't have the results at the moment. At enet.c I didn't noticed mutch of a difference since handling 10base-T traffic isn't that mutch of a problem at the moment and I didn't spend time to figure out the exact CPU load. I remember that someone said he had an performance impact at small packets. I didn't noticed any (even though there must be a slight on caused by the additinal if-statement). I can post some of our results results after I did some more tests but that may take a while since I am buisy with other stuff at the moment. Stephan > > PS. > Any perticular reason not to cc the embedded list also? Others would > probably be intressted also. > Well, there is a 'reason'. I simply didn't payed attention to the fact that a simple reply doesn't reply to the list. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
