| To: | anton@xxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4) |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:34:40 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx, haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx, hdierks@xxxxxxxxxx, dwg@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, milliner@xxxxxxxxxx, ricardoz@xxxxxxxxxx, twichell@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030614005534.GF32097@krispykreme> |
| References: | <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E010107D93A@orsmsx402.jf.intel.com> <20030613.165250.41635765.davem@redhat.com> <20030614005534.GF32097@krispykreme> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:55:34 +1000 What I think is happening is that we arent tripping the prefetch logic. We should take a latency hit for only the first cacheline at which point the host bridge decides to start prefetching for us. If not then we take take the latency hit on each transaction. It sounds like what happens is that the sub-cacheline word reads don't trigger the prefetch, but the first PCI read multiple transaction does. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [patch] IPV6: Refcount leaks in udpv6_connect(), YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Anton Blanchard |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Anton Blanchard |
| Next by Thread: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Anton Blanchard |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |