atom feed51 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-armRe: Performance of SheevaPlug on 8-st...
FromSent OnAttachments
Maks VerverMar 6, 2010 12:39 pm 
Bernd WalterMar 6, 2010 1:16 pm 
Bernd WalterMar 6, 2010 1:51 pm 
M. Warner LoshMar 6, 2010 2:25 pm 
Maks VerverMar 6, 2010 5:39 pm 
Bernd WalterMar 6, 2010 10:59 pm 
Maks VerverMar 7, 2010 11:55 am 
Bernd WalterMar 7, 2010 12:11 pm 
Rafal JaworowskiMar 7, 2010 12:30 pm 
Mark TinguelyMar 7, 2010 1:25 pm 
Maks VerverMar 7, 2010 1:38 pm 
Bernd WalterMar 7, 2010 4:26 pm 
Bernd WalterMar 7, 2010 5:30 pm 
Bernd WalterMar 7, 2010 6:16 pm 
Mark TinguelyMar 7, 2010 6:59 pm 
Bernd WalterMar 8, 2010 12:20 am 
Jacques FourieMar 8, 2010 12:25 am 
Hans Petter SelaskyMar 8, 2010 1:06 am 
Bernd WalterMar 8, 2010 4:40 am 
Mark TinguelyMar 8, 2010 5:57 am 
M. Warner LoshMar 8, 2010 6:07 am 
Maks VerverMar 8, 2010 6:28 am 
Grzegorz BernackiMar 8, 2010 7:50 am 
M. Warner LoshMar 8, 2010 8:14 am 
Mark TinguelyMar 8, 2010 10:18 am 
Bernd WalterMar 8, 2010 10:41 am 
Mark TinguelyMar 8, 2010 11:36 am 
Bernd WalterMar 8, 2010 11:54 am 
Maks VerverMar 8, 2010 3:50 pm 
Rafal JaworowskiMar 9, 2010 2:03 am 
Grzegorz BernackiMar 9, 2010 8:11 am 
Mark TinguelyMar 9, 2010 10:11 am 
Grzegorz BernackiMar 10, 2010 5:57 am 
Rafal JaworowskiMar 10, 2010 6:04 am 
Mark TinguelyMar 10, 2010 6:20 am 
Bernd WalterMar 10, 2010 6:37 am 
Rafal JaworowskiMar 10, 2010 7:52 am 
Mark TinguelyMar 10, 2010 8:41 am 
Mark TinguelyMar 10, 2010 10:06 am 
Rafal JaworowskiMar 11, 2010 1:18 pm 
Maks VerverMar 12, 2010 9:51 am 
Maks VerverMar 12, 2010 11:58 am 
Mark TinguelyMar 12, 2010 1:20 pm 
Mark TinguelyMar 15, 2010 10:50 am 
Mark TinguelyMar 22, 2010 7:54 am 
Olivier HouchardMar 22, 2010 8:05 am 
Mark TinguelyMar 22, 2010 9:25 am 
Steve WoodfordMar 23, 2010 1:14 am 
Grzegorz BernackiMar 23, 2010 4:13 am 
Mark TinguelyMar 23, 2010 5:56 am 
Mark TinguelyNov 3, 2010 9:08 am 
Subject:Re: Performance of SheevaPlug on 8-stable
From:Bernd Walter (tic@cicely7.cicely.de)
Date:Mar 7, 2010 12:11:51 pm
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-arm

On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 08:56:14PM +0100, Maks Verver wrote:

On 03/07/2010 08:00 AM, Bernd Walter wrote:

That's probably just because of different CPUs. I see a similar output on all of my systems with ARM920T CPU and still there is something wrong.

That's strange indeed. I'm not sure if our problems are at all related (as in: caused by the same problem) as you seem to be using fairly different hardware.

That's true, but the symptoms I see are quite similar, although the OS version seem to have an influence on how high the performance loss actually is. This fact is especially puzzling, because I would have either expected similar results or calulated performance.

In my case the kernel (at boot up) doesn't seem to even think caches are enabled, which gives me some hope that if they were, then they would work. In your case the kernel claims to enable them but then they don't work. Seems different to me.

It is just different code printing the details for your CPU. Take a look into sys/arm/arm/identcpu.c. There is "if xxx IC disabled else IC enabled" printing - if you see neither it is not printing from this code at all.

Your loop isn't doing any data access, so it's just saying something about ICACHE not working.

True enough.

But maybe it is not ICACHE itself and the memory pages are just declared uncacheable?

Another possibility. If anyone has suggestions on how to investigate this, I'd love to hear it.

Me too.