ka,
I was wondering if that was what you meant - most of us would love to have
that problem [:-)
It seems to me that the wait times are longer because you have more
horsepower.
I do not know your architecture - are you just EDMAing from SDRAM to IRAM
or is this data coming from IO?? If you are just coping RAM and your DSP
has nothing to do, you could try to operate on SDRAM directly and see what that
does for your overall processing time.
You might review/experiment with you EDMA setup. Also, if your algo
permits it, you might play with the transfer count.
mikedunn
Anand K <a...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Mike, when I say "EDMA wait time" - I mean the
idle time, when the CPU sits doing nothing waiting for an EDMA transfer to
complete. For e.g. in a ping-pong buffering scheme, CPU has processed ping
buffer and waiting for pong buffer to be transferred into the Internal
SRAM. (Apologize for the ambiguity, is there a more tangible term for this ?)
I am also wondering if the extra priority level on the C64x
would help mitigate the long wait times, havent experimented with that
yet.
ka
--- In c...@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dunn
wrote: > ka, > > The 64x EDMA does appear to be
an extension of the 621x/671x EDMA. There does seem to be some functions
relating to cache and EDMA that are longer [in clock cycles] - but overall
I like the performance of the c64. > > When you say
'EDMA wait
times', I am not sure of the meaning. Are you referring to latency??
or setup time?? > > mikedunn > > Anand K
wrote:> Hello friends: > > I left this one out on my
previous post. I am curious to know whether > or not the EDMA
mechanism changed from C62x to the C64X processors. > By reading
SPRU190 (Peripherals Reference Guide), it seems it did > not. The EDMA
wait times on C64x for the exact same design I had on > C62x are
annoyingly longer (in terms of clock-cycles and percent of > total
time) than those on the C62x. > > My question is, do I
necessarily have to do more processing than on > C62X to reduce the
EDMA wait times ? I mean, real processing, not > just increasing the
amount of data transferred/processed. > > Looking forward to
your comments and ideas. Thanks to Mike and > Indrajit for sharing
their views on
optimization. > > Regards >
ka_____________________________________ Note: If you do a simple "reply"
with your email client, only the author of this message will receive your
answer. You need to do a "reply all" if you want your answer to be distributed
to the entire group.
_____________________________________ About
this discussion group:
To Join: Send an email to
c...@yahoogroups.com
To Post: Send an email to
c...@yahoogroups.com
To Leave: Send an email to
c...@yahoogroups.com
Archives:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/c6x
Other Groups:
http://www.dsprelated.com
|