Philippe Gerum wrote:
[..]
>The last significant change between -00 and -01 is actually the one related to 
>the fork pressure (others are cosmetic ones aimed at better sharing stuff with 
>the blackfin port). The patch below against -02 removes it.

Here is the result of tests with version 1.0-02+ (entry.S patch) on e500:
 
load: ~1 minute ping -f, one run of calibrator chewing 64MiB.

SWITCH without load:
RTH|     lat min|     lat avg|     lat max|        lost
RTD|        3660|        3690|        8070|           0    1.0-00
RTD|        4620|        4740|        8730|           0    1.0-01
RTD|        4620|        4740|        8190|           0    1.0-02
RTD|        4650|        4740|        7980|           0    1.0-02+

KLATENCY with load:
RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun|
RTS|       -7350|       -5715|        6420|       0|    00:03:17 1.0-00
RTS|       -6150|       -4384|       12180|       0|    00:03:13 1.0-01
RTS|       -6150|       -4183|       12480|       0|    00:03:38 1.0-02
RTS|       -6120|       -4447|        8370|       0|    00:03:47 1.0-02+

LATENCY with load:
== Sampling period: 100 us
RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun|
RTS|       -6930|       -4260|        8700|       0|    00:08:06 1.0-00
RTS|       -5670|       -4620|       12930|       0|    00:12:39 1.0-01
RTS|       -5700|       -3750|       11280|       0|    00:06:05 1.0-02
RTS|       -5640|       -2250|       11310|       0|    00:10:31 1.0-02+

Load is still generated manually, so the pattern may vary: lat avg
is not meaningful. The amplitude would be a much more interesting value.
Anyway, are the generated load comparable?

The klatency is in better shape, however the latency test did not improve.
The 1.0-00 patch should be rerun as a double check.
I'm afraid we're already entering performance fine tuning, while we have
IMO other higher priority tasks for now. At least, I do :-(

-- 
St├ęphane


Reply via email to