[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OF70832E04.3DC53F05-ONC1257589.00663AFF-C1257589.0066C397@transmode.se>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:42:28 +0200
From: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@...nsmode.se>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
Cc: Li Yang <leoli@...escale.com>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pku.leo@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ucc_geth: Rework the TX logic.
Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com> wrote on 30/03/2009 19:45:17:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com> wrote on 30/03/2009 19:22:03:
> >> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >>> gianfar does not seem to use in_/out_ functions for the BDs. Works
> > just
> >>> fine that too it seems.
> >> It does now that it has explicit barriers in a few places. Before
they
> >
> > In 2.6.29 or later?
>
> No, it was earlier.
Ah, I see now. The eieio() stuff.
>
> >> were added, it would sometimes fail under load. That was due to a
> >> compiler reordering, but CPU reordering was possible as well.
> >
> > Does not the CPU skip reordering if the guarded bit is set?
>
> The guarded bit is typically not set for DMA buffers. ucc_geth is a bit
> different since descriptors are in MURAM which is ioremap()ed -- though
> switching to a cacheable mapping with barriers should be a performance
> improvement.
I always thought that MURAM was very fast. The whole reason to have BDs in
MURAM is that it is faster than normal RAM, at least that is what I
thought.
Jocke
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists