[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m33a5lsls1.fsf@intrepid.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:33:50 +0200
From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To: ddutile@...hat.com
Cc: Stefan Assmann <sassmann@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com, matthew@....cx
Subject: Re: GT/s vs Gbps for PCIe bus speed
Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com> writes:
> so, maybe the right terms are
> 2.5 GHz PCI-E
> 5.0 GHz PCI-E
I don't thinks so. It would be fine for PCI/PCI-X, as there is a clock
signal with a given frequency. PCI-E doesn't use a clock signal. Really,
the meaningful value is a cycle time (or number of cycles per second).
Of course one could calculate or measure a frequency (or spectrum) for
a given code sequence on PCI-E. For example, for something like
01010101010101 (raw code) the (base) frequency would be 1.25 or 2.5 GHz
for 2.0. For other patterns it would be lower.
> No matter how many lanes, or how the data is sent (long or short bursts),
> the frequency rate is a constant.
Actually, this is not the case.
> So, the data rate is not stated, just the cycle rate.
Cycle rate, sure. Frequency, no.
> This would follow the PCIX syntax as well, which is
> void of bandwidth illusions.
Bandwidth, actually it may make some sense. But it would have to take
#lanes into account, I'm not sure we want to do it. And it would create
another confusion - raw vs effective bandwidth (like 125 vs 100 Mbps
with Ethernet).
--
Krzysztof Halasa
--
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