On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/17/2016 12:46 PM, Dan Williams wrote: >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:29:24AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote: >>>> I realize that when I run DMA test kernel module, the performance numbers reported are not quite >>>> accurate. The code is adding the compare and fill time to the IO performance achieved. I can see >>>> the real numbers when I choose noverify option. >>>> >>>> Isn't this a bug? >>> >>> My suspicion is that it is a feature :) >>>> >>>> Why would you report a performance number including the source fill and destination compare? >>> >>> On this, I think I agree with you, Dan? >> >> It was just easier, i.e. deliberate laziness ;-), to not have a >> special case. Yes, the performance numbers are only realistic in the >> noverify case. I wouldn't say no to a patch that removes the >> performance numbers in the !noverify case, but I personally don't see >> the point... >> > > I have testers and customers opening a bug case to me saying that we are > not reaching to performance numbers advertised. I have to carefully explain > them that the test is not correct and they are resisting. Ah, sorry about that. If they're reading this thread, "Listen to Sinan!!!" > I want to remove this ambiguity. Sounds good to me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
