On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
From: Richard Woodruff r-woodru...@ti.com
Analysis in TI kernel with ETM showed that using cache mapped flush
in kernel instead of SO mapped flush cost drops by 65% (3.39mS down
to 1.17mS) for clean_l2 which is used during
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:46:19AM +0100, ext Jean Pihet wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
From: Richard Woodruff r-woodru...@ti.com
Analysis in TI kernel with ETM showed that using cache mapped flush
in kernel instead of SO mapped flush cost drops
Hi Peter,
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver
peter.de-schrij...@nokia.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:46:19AM +0100, ext Jean Pihet wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
From: Richard Woodruff r-woodru...@ti.com
Analysis in
From: Richard Woodruff r-woodru...@ti.com
Analysis in TI kernel with ETM showed that using cache mapped flush
in kernel instead of SO mapped flush cost drops by 65% (3.39mS down
to 1.17mS) for clean_l2 which is used during sleep sequences.
Overall:
- speed up
- unfortunately there
