| To: | Arthur Kepner <akepner@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] use mmiowb in tg3_poll |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 31 May 2005 08:53:42 -0400 |
| Cc: | Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, jesse.barnes@xxxxxxxxx, gnb@xxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505300925570.11645@linux.site> |
| Organization: | unknown |
| References: | <200410211628.06906.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0410221345400.392-100000@localhost.localdomain> <20050528231209.GA8456@xi.wantstofly.org> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505300925570.11645@linux.site> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 2005-30-05 at 09:30 -0700, Arthur Kepner wrote: > I quickly looked through the records that I have and, unfortunately, > wasn't able to locate raw data. But I found some scrawlings in my > notes which say the most recent measurements for an Altix are: > > i) PIO read latency ~ 2.4 usec > ii) mmiowb() latency ~ 1.1 usec > In terms of CPU cycles, how many do the above compute to be? The absolute time numbers you have are also useful for quantification purposes. Did i read correctly that your reads are about 2x more expensive than the writes? cheers, jamal |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 3/4] [NEIGH] neighbour table configuration and statistics via rtnetlink, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 3/4] [NEIGH] neighbour table configuration and statistics via rtnetlink, Thomas Graf |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] use mmiowb in tg3_poll, Arthur Kepner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] use mmiowb in tg3_poll, Jesse Barnes |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |