http://mailman.uclinux.org/pipermail/uclinux-dev/2003-September/020915.html

on 9/7/03 7:49 PM, Hyok S. Choi at hyok.choi at samsung.com wrote:

> Hi greg,
> 
> Please call me Hyok. ^^
> I'm using JTAG emulators for runtime measuring.(T32)
> First of all, I patched equal code for S3C2410 (logically) for Linux and
> uClinux both. (2.4.21) and took step by step runtime analysis in
> function base.
> So, the main benchmark code was Linux Kernel. The key difference in
> linux kernel boot-time was "mem_init" function, tough.
> I have a plan to release a document for uClinux and Linux kernel boot
> time analysis and optimization of both. (greg, give me an advice for
> appropriate place to release)
> 
> Thanks for your reading,
> Hyok
> 
> <EOT>
> CHOI, HYOK-SUNG
> Engineer (Linux System Software)
> S/W Platform Lab, Digital Media R&D Center
> Samsung Electronics Co.,Ltd.
> tel: +82-31-200-8594  fax: +82-31-200-3427
> e-mail: hyok.choi at samsung.com <mailto:hyok.choi at samsung.com>
> 
> [compile&run]
> main(a){printf(a,34,a="main(a){printf(a,34,a=%c%s%c,34);}",34);}
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uclinux-dev-bounces at uclinux.org
> [mailto:uclinux-dev-bounces at uclinux.org] On Behalf Of Greg Ungerer
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 9:43 AM
> To: uClinux development list
> Subject: Re: [uClinux-dev] Re: MMU vs non MMU
> 
> Hi Hyok S. Choi,
> 
> Hyok S. Choi wrote:
>> I've developed and optimized Linux and uClinux kernels for many
>> platforms and several ARM chips include s3c2800, s3c3410, s3c2410,
>> s5c7375, and so on.
>> 
>> One of them(s3c2410) was to be both ported, Linux Kernel(w/MMU) AND
>> uClinux Kernel(wo/MMU).
>> 
>> It is based on 200MHz ARM920T core, and embeds several peripherals,
> with 
>> I and D caches, and used in various applications include PDA, phone,
>> network.
>> 
>> The result was "the same", for both kernels, for plain codes, except
> for 
>> some paging initializing codes in kernel in booting phase (Linux
> kernel 
>> was faster). It is not from performance reason, but seems cache
> effect, 
>> though I didn't look carefully for that, yet.
> 
> What tests did you perform?
> What benchmarks did you use?
> 
> Regards
> Greg

Reply via email to