Arm Community
Site
Search
User
Site
Search
User
Support forums
Arm Development Studio forum
Slow performance on samsung S3C6410
Jump...
Cancel
Locked
Locked
Replies
8 replies
Subscribers
119 subscribers
Views
4778 views
Users
0 members are here
Options
Share
More actions
Cancel
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion
Slow performance on samsung S3C6410
Marcin Jędrzejewski
over 12 years ago
Note: This was originally posted on 18th January 2011 at
http://forums.arm.com
Hi,
I'am a software developer and I am trying to port our product to new device. This is Windows CE 6 device with S3C6410 (ARM1176JZF-S) CPU. The problem is that Q-Bench benchmarks show that this is very fast system but after executing our application it is actually very slow.
I have spend a lot of time profiling various parts of our product, but it shows nothing. Finally what I have found out is that the problem is with the huge code amount. Actually our .exe is ~10MB in size. I have made tests in which I have auto generated huge amounts of code (~200,000 lines of c++ code, VS2005 compiled), and now executing this exe (~1.5MB) on this device shows significant slow down, 8 - 10 times comparing it to other devices (with slower CPUs). This auto generated code does nothing with data, it just executes lots of functions which just increment some variables.
My question is what is the source of problem? From What I know this CPU has 16 KiB instruction cache. Can it be somehow badly configured? I actually have no contact with this device manufacturer. I can only give some hints to its reseler to maybe push information further.
some more info:
Q-Bench Pro - shows that Cache Line == 8, while on other devices it is 32
CeGetCacheInfo - gives below results:
dwL1Flags=0
dwL1ICacheSize=16384
dwL1ICacheLineSize=32
dwL1ICacheNumWays=4
dwL1DCacheSize=16384
dwL1DCacheLineSize=32
dwL1DCacheNumWays=4
dwL2Flags=0
dwL2ICacheSize=0
dwL2ICacheLineSize=0
dwL2ICacheNumWays=0
dwL2DCacheSize=0
dwL2DCacheLineSize=0
dwL2DCacheNumWays=0
Thank You for any help
Martin
Parents
Marcin Jędrzejewski
over 12 years ago
Note: This was originally posted on 20th January 2011 at
http://forums.arm.com
this is what I was afraid of, reorganizing code to minimize i-cache reloads is not an easy task from the c++ programmer view, one thing that puzzle me is that our application works OK (among many other CPUs) on the following two:
MTK, ARM1176JZ-S-MT3351
sirf arm1136jf-s-a-at550
I made a benchmark comparison of above two CPUs with the problematic one:
MT3351(wce5) / at550(wce6) / S3C6410(wce6)
CPU: 241.113Q / 508.559Q / 505.484Q
Memory: 229.122Q / 605.436Q / 343.842Q
File I/O: 21.497KQ / 37.940KQ / 2.586KQ
GDI: 202.291Q / 415.037Q / 288.697Q
(this are standardized tests made with QBench Pro and their details can be found here [Removed]
(File I/O measured on SD card)
(GDI: MT3351 and S3C6410 is 800x480 screen, at550 is 480x272)
for each of the above CPUs, CeGetCacheInfo returns the same information.
I really dont see that S3C6410 is more powerfull than the other two ones. When it comes to CPU it is even a little bit worse than at550.
Cancel
Vote up
0
Vote down
Cancel
Reply
Marcin Jędrzejewski
over 12 years ago
Note: This was originally posted on 20th January 2011 at
http://forums.arm.com
this is what I was afraid of, reorganizing code to minimize i-cache reloads is not an easy task from the c++ programmer view, one thing that puzzle me is that our application works OK (among many other CPUs) on the following two:
MTK, ARM1176JZ-S-MT3351
sirf arm1136jf-s-a-at550
I made a benchmark comparison of above two CPUs with the problematic one:
MT3351(wce5) / at550(wce6) / S3C6410(wce6)
CPU: 241.113Q / 508.559Q / 505.484Q
Memory: 229.122Q / 605.436Q / 343.842Q
File I/O: 21.497KQ / 37.940KQ / 2.586KQ
GDI: 202.291Q / 415.037Q / 288.697Q
(this are standardized tests made with QBench Pro and their details can be found here [Removed]
(File I/O measured on SD card)
(GDI: MT3351 and S3C6410 is 800x480 screen, at550 is 480x272)
for each of the above CPUs, CeGetCacheInfo returns the same information.
I really dont see that S3C6410 is more powerfull than the other two ones. When it comes to CPU it is even a little bit worse than at550.
Cancel
Vote up
0
Vote down
Cancel
Children
No data