[U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx data cache lock?
Wolfgang Denk
wd at denx.de
Tue May 23 11:26:35 CEST 2006
In message <9FCDBA58F226D911B202000BDBAD4673026FD910 at zch01exm40.ap.freescale.net> you wrote:
> What is the [non-existent] write performance? Can you tell me?
Just measue the time it takes to initialize ECC memory either using
the cache or DMA methods; here is a short summary (don't complain -
you asked for it!):
----- quote begin -----
1. Read vs. write performance
Writing to DDR memory is *much* slower than reading it.
ECC off
read duration: 509 ms
write duration: 1546 ms
ECC on
read duration: 509 ms
write duration: 5703 ms
There's no clear indication in both DDR (8349) docs and Micron
specification of our module on if and how read vs. write operations
differ in timing. There is one pointer for the ECC case, which
suggests writes can take three stages (full read-modify-write cycle)
instead of just one:
"9.5.4 SDRAM Interface Timing - If ECC is disabled, writes smaller than
double words are performed by appropriately activating the data mask. If
ECC is enabled, the controller performs a read-modify write."
The problem is we see 3x difference when the ECC is off, and 10x when
on. We also did a series of tests with various chunk sizes of data
written, so as to be sure we do not do the indicated sub-double word
writes, but the results were the same.
This is really strange, although at least read operations are not
affected by enabling ECC (which is according to the book - there should
be minimal overhead put on read operations while ECC on, see 3. below).
2. DMA (low) performance
Using DMA for transfers proves very inefficient. As mentioned earlier,
the DMA module in 8349 is different than seen in other families, and it
occured to us a bit "alien" when compared with the rest of the chip (DMA
documentation part is rather limited, and different in style etc.), as
if taken from elsewhere. It is also peculiar in technical aspects:
endianness used is different, so we need to convert the order explicitly
in s/w.
We tried increasing the local bus clocking but to no avail.
Given that low performance it doesn't make much difference whether ECC
is enabled or not:
DMA, ECC on
ddr init duration: 6947 ms
DMA, ECC off
ddr init duration: 6721 ms
There seems something broken with the DMA operations in general as they
are way slower than just plain read/write to memory, which is somehow
confirmed by your recent communication from the customer.
3. ECC penalty
As can be seen in results given in 1. enabling ECC puts a huge burden on
write access, which is contrary to 8349 UM:
p. 9-27 (above figure 9-24) "When ECC is enabled, one clock cycle is
added to the read path to check ECC and correct single-bit errors. ECC
generation does not add a cycle to the write path."
----- quote begin -----
Can you explain why writing to ECC memory is 10 times slower than
reading?
> In message <9FCDBA58F226D911B202000BDBAD4673026FD90F at zch01exm40.ap.freescale.net> you wrote:
> >
> > MPC83xx data cache locked all ways in u-boot. This means data cache
> > looks like cache-inhibit. when kernel run at this u-boot, kernel don't
[Full quote deleted]
Please learn to quote! See
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job?
A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list