[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48050EF1.8050507@keyaccess.nl>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:24:17 +0200
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To: "Lev A. Melnikovsky" <melnikovsky@...l.ru>
CC: Alessandro Suardi <alessandro.suardi@...il.com>,
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ehci-hcd affects hda speed
On 15-04-08 21:56, Lev A. Melnikovsky wrote:
> Sorry, I had virtually no time to answer earlier. If (hopefully) someone
> is still interested, here's my feedback
Interested yes, although being no longer in posession of the hardware it's a
somewhat academic interest...
> I have repeated experiments with P3B-F and VT6212L combination (to
> improve visibility the AsyncSchedSleepTime is set to 1us):
>
> #0. Nothing is connected to USB, no ehci-hcd loaded
> hda throughput 28+-1MB/s
>
> #1. ehci-hcd loaded, still no USB peripherals
> hda throughput 28+-1 MB/s
>
> #2. Something (USB hub and FLASH drive tested) is attached
> hda throughput 15+-1 MB/s
>
> #3. All USB peripherals are removed
> hda throughput 15+-1 MB/s
>
> #4. ehci-hcd is rmmod'ed
> hda throughput 28+-1MB/s
>
> The oddest peculiarity for me is the hysteretic difference between #1 and
> #3 states. I mean experimental data (hda throughput) depends not on the
> state (hardware/loaded modules), but on the path we followed.
On the chip having inited itself at least. Yes, your results match what I
experienced.
> Interestingly enough, sampling registers (via /sys) often shows Async bit
> set of the status register in the state #3. It is always cleared in #1.
> The async file is empty in both states. I wonder, how many degrees of
> freedom does an empty schedule have? Does "empty" mean "has no incomplete
> requests" or "has no requests at all"? Just guessing...
Should leave this up to David, but as far as I'm aware "no at all".
> RH> The sleep time wasn't the core problem, so I wonder of later VIA chips do
> RH> still have the active async schedule problem...
> I don't think this is purely VIA problem. I did not _try_ to install that
> VT6212L card into newer motherboard, but my _feeling_ is that we see an
> "incompatibility" between older PCI mobo chipsets and VIA USB controller.
I very much doubt that. Can't really imagine an off-silicon reason the chip
would keep scanning the async schedule. I'm also now using a NEC controller
card in that same machine and it also shows no problems.
> Actually, taking into account superior PCI bandwidth of modern PCs (if
> compared with my old P3B-F motherboard) I am not sure we can perform a
> clean reliable test without PCI bus analyzer.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/30/259
>
> -l
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists