[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <50EBC1C1.3060208@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:50:41 +0100
From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...dd.com>, federico.vaga@...il.com,
mchehab@...radead.org, pawel@...iak.com, hans.verkuil@...co.com,
giancarlo.asnaghi@...com, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, s.nawrocki@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] videobuf2-dma-streaming: new videobuf2 memory
allocator
On 1/7/2013 9:15 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 7 Jan 2013 12:40:50 -0700
> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:
>
> > On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 00:09:47 +0100
> > Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...dd.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't expect you'll see serious performance differences on the PC. I
> > > think ARM users will have better benefits, due to the different cache
> > > architecture. You told me Jon measured meaningful figures on a Marvel
> > > CPU.
> >
> > It made the difference between 10 frames per second with the CPU running
> > flat out and 30fps mostly idle. I think that probably counts as
> > meaningful, yeah...:)
>
> Couldn't this performance difference be due to the usage of GFP_DMA inside
> the VB2 code, like Federico's new patch series is proposing?
>
> If not, why are there a so large performance penalty?
Nope, this was caused rather by a very poor CPU access to non-cached (aka
'coherent') memory and the way the video data has been accessed/read
with CPU.
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung Poland R&D Center
--
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