Thanks for all the feedback.
I enclose new results from the lmbench testing.
Answering some suggestions,
I won't use gmplayer as a benchmarking tool. The platform has no
graphics adapter. We're developing a streaming video application in an
embedded platform (no hdd either).
I'll check that the driver is using the write-gather functionality to
move data from/to the ethernet adapter.
As before, I'd appreciate some other results from modern systems to
compare with.
Regards,
Alex
-------------------------------------------------
L M B E N C H 3 . 0 S U M M A R Y
------------------------------------
(Alpha software, do not distribute)
Basic system parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Description Mhz tlb cache mem scal
pages line par load
bytes
--------- ------------- ----------------------- ---- ----- ----- ------ ----
192.168.1 Linux 2.6.12- mips-linux-gnu 985 4 32 1.4200 1
Processor, Processes - times in microseconds - smaller is better
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Mhz null null open slct sig sig fork exec sh
call I/O stat clos TCP inst hndl proc proc proc
--------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
192.168.1 Linux 2.6.12- 985 0.19 0.49 4.29 150. 25.4 0.65 3.76 828. 5032 16.K
Basic integer operations - times in nanoseconds - smaller is better
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS intgr intgr intgr intgr intgr
bit add mul div mod
--------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
192.168.1 Linux 2.6.12- 1.0200 1.0200 4.1500 43.5 41.5
Basic float operations - times in nanoseconds - smaller is better
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS float float float float
add mul div bogo
--------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
192.168.1 Linux 2.6.12- 6.0700 6.0700 22.3 41.7
Basic double operations - times in nanoseconds - smaller is better
------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS double double double double
add mul div bogo
--------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
192.168.1 Linux 2.6.12- 6.0700 9.1100 37.4 62.0
Context switching - times in microseconds - smaller is better
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS 2p/0K 2p/16K 2p/64K 8p/16K 8p/64K 16p/16K 16p/64K
ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw
--------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- -------
192.168.1 Linux 2.6.12- 0.8400 5.6600 8.2600 22.6 235.2 58.9 242.3
*Local* Communication latencies in microseconds - smaller is better
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS 2p/0K Pipe AF UDP RPC/ TCP RPC/ TCP
ctxsw UNIX UDP TCP conn
--------- ------------- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
192.168.1 Linux 2.6.12- 0.840 6.775 13.4 38.0 143.
File & VM system latencies in microseconds - smaller is better
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS 0K File 10K File Mmap Prot Page 100fd
Create Delete Create Delete Latency Fault Fault selct
--------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- ------- -----
192.168.1 Linux 2.6.12- 4926.0 0.622 2.59860 16.6
*Local* Communication bandwidths in MB/s - bigger is better
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Pipe AF TCP File Mmap Bcopy Bcopy Mem Mem
UNIX reread reread (libc) (hand) read write
--------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- -----
192.168.1 Linux 2.6.12- 141. 292. 57.2 140.5 224.7 97.1 88.2 224. 155.4
Memory latencies in nanoseconds - smaller is better
(WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Mhz L1 $ L2 $ Main mem Rand mem Guesses
--------- ------------- --- ---- ---- -------- -------- -------
192.168.1 Linux 2.6.12- 985 3.0750 45.4 109.5 254.9
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 00:14, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 03:42:29PM +0100, Alex Gonzalez wrote:
>
> > The performance of our video application is well below our expectations.
> > We are still doing some profiling work on it, but we are also looking at
> > other possibilities.
> >
> > What other benchmarking tool would you recommend?
> >
> > Currently it's a NFS mounted system, but even if we could use a block
> > device the access speed wouldn't be more than 1.5 Mbps, so that is a
> > limitation for the benchmark.
>
> As a shot into the dark ...
>
> Make sure you exploit the RM9000's write-gathering capabilities when
> writing into the frame buffer. If the frame buffer happens to be on
> a PCI device you're probably performing uncached writes which will
> slow down the thing to a crawl.
>
> Ralf
