On Wednesday 14 October 2009 17:48:39 ext e...@gmx.de wrote:
Mem clock is both times 166MHz. I don't know whether are differences in
cycle access and timing, but memclock is fine.
Following Siarhei hints of initialize the buffers (around 1.2 MByte
each)
I get different results in
There is no newer u-boot from TI available. There is a SDK 02.01.03.11
but it contains the same uboot 2008.10 with the only addition of the second
generation of EVM boards with another network chip.
So I checked the uboot from git, but this doesn't support Microns NAND Flash
anymore. It is
, Richard r-woodru...@ti.com
An: e...@gmx.de e...@gmx.de, Premi, Sanjeev pr...@ti.com,
linux-omap@vger.kernel.org linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Betreff: RE: RE: Memory performance / Cache problem
There is no newer u-boot from TI available. There is a SDK 02.01.03.11
but it contains the same uboot
From: e...@gmx.de [mailto:e...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 9:49 AM
To: Woodruff, Richard; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Premi, Sanjeev
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Memory performance / Cache problem
Mem clock is both times 166MHz. I don't know whether are differences in cycle
access
Mem clock is both times 166MHz. I don't know whether are differences in
cycle
access and timing, but memclock is fine.
How did you physically verify this?
Oszi show 166MHz, also the kernel message about freq are in both kernels the
same.
Following Siarhei hints of initialize the
From: e...@gmx.de [mailto:e...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:23 PM
To: Woodruff, Richard; Premi, Sanjeev; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Memory performance / Cache problem
Yes aligned buffers can make a difference. But probably more so for small
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 17:48:39 ext e...@gmx.de wrote:
Mem clock is both times 166MHz. I don't know whether are differences in
cycle access and timing, but memclock is fine.
Following Siarhei hints of initialize the buffers (around 1.2 MByte each)
I get different results in 22kernel for
From: Siarhei Siamashka [mailto:siarhei.siamas...@nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:37 PM
To: ext e...@gmx.de
What you see is just a (fake) performance boost because you have a single
physical page shared between all the virtual pages in the source buffer. So
you get no cache
Can you upgrade to a newer u-boot? Either from the PSP release
OR u-boot tree hosted at git.denx.de (atleast 2009.03)?
Also, it will be good to see the sample program you are using.
~sanjeev
There is no newer u-boot from TI available. There is a SDK 02.01.03.11
but it contains the
The L2 cache is set and running.
I don't know - can it be configured or misconfigured somehow?
I just checked the output of 2.6.22 kernel and get these lines (which I don't
have in newer kernels):
CPU0: D VIPT write-through cache
CPU0: cache: 768 bytes, associativity 1, 8 byte lines, 64 sets
Subject: Memory performance / Cache problem
I found the memory performance of newer kernels are quit poor on an EVM-
Omap3 board. It works with 2-6 times performance on the old 2.6.22 kernel from
TI's PSP.
Possible reasons:
- problem in config the kernel (did omap3_evm_defconfig)
- problem
On Monday 12 October 2009 10:54:09 ext e...@gmx.de wrote:
I found the memory performance of newer kernels are quit poor on an
EVM-Omap3 board. It works with 2-6 times performance on the old 2.6.22
kernel from TI's PSP.
Possible reasons:
- problem in config the kernel (did
Linux version 2.6.31 (s...@localhost) (gcc version 4.3.3 (Sourcery G++ Lite
2009q1-203) ) #1 Mon Oct 12 08:30:58 CEST 2009
CPU: ARMv7 Processor [411fc082] revision 2 (ARMv7), cr=10c53c7f
CPU: VIPT nonaliasing data cache, VIPT nonaliasing instruction cache
Machine: OMAP3 EVM
Memory policy: ECC
, October 12, 2009 2:08 PM
To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Memory performance / Cache problem
Linux version 2.6.31 (s...@localhost) (gcc version 4.3.3 (Sourcery G++ Lite
2009q1-
203) ) #1 Mon Oct 12 08:30:58 CEST 2009
CPU: ARMv7 Processor [411fc082] revision 2 (ARMv7), cr=10c53c7f
CPU: VIPT
-Original Message-
From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of e...@gmx.de
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 2:08 PM
To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Memory performance / Cache problem
Linux version 2.6.31 (s...@localhost
; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Memory performance / Cache problem
Please update to the latest HEAD on the linux-omap pm branch. In the gitweb it
shows
b7ecc865c5f0885fae4c4401fa78a24084f45c40
Thanks,
-Romit
-Original Message-
From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org
16 matches
Mail list logo