On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 09:27:18AM -0600, Brian Ford wrote: > I agree with you about the profiling stuff. Did you post this idea to the > main kernel mailing list?
Sure; they were all too busy though. Profiling already worked for most of them, and a cross-architecture change either requires the co-operation of all seperate architecture maintainers, or a dictatorial initiative from above. > Thanks. I had already hacked something like this together. It would be > great to finalize these and get them into the real sources. Yes, that would be excellent. > I also turned checksumming off for testing purposes. It helped some, but > I think my bottle neck is that I can't get the bus to run faster than 33 > Mhz reliably. If I could get the bus clocked at what it is rated, I might > be better off. Absolutely; the bus is the bottleneck. You'll find the network throughput scales almost linearly with bus speed, so getting it clocked faster will give a higher payback than more driver tweaking. Also, doesn't the 8260 have seperate memory subsystems to help get around this? Regards, Graham -- Graham Stoney Assistant Technology Manager Canon Information Systems Research Australia Ph: +61 2 9805 2909 Fax: +61 2 9805 2929 ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
