From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Mar 22 12:21: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [207.252.1.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B15015238 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:20:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Received: from dbsys (dbsys.etinc.com [207.252.1.18]) by etinc.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA21360; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:19:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903222019.PAA21360@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:14:34 -0500 To: Matthew Dillon From: Dennis Subject: Re: Gigabit ethernet -- what am I doing wrong? Cc: Mike Smith , Amancio Hasty , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199903221834.KAA21361@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199903221711.MAA20551@etinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 10:34 AM 3/22/99 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > >:>This has nothing whatever to do with reality, however. Most PCI >:>peripherals are bus masters, and most memory busses these days are at >:>least 64 bits wide, so 64 bit PCI has very real performance benefits. >:> >:>The processor's internal word size has little or nothing to do with the >:>equation. >: >:The ability to do single-cycle transfers IS affected by the internal >:processor's >:word size. If it can't do sustained single-cycle bursts then performance >:suffers >:significantly, so I disagree wholeheartedly on this. If the on-board processor >:doesnt have a 64bit bus it is very difficult to do single cycle transfers. >: >:Dennis > > All PCI card chipsets implement internal read and write > DMA FIFO's. Thus a 64 bit PCI card can easily burst 64 bit > words over the PCI bus. If the processor on the card > itself cannot stuff the FIFO quickly enough to hold the burst > for a period longer then the size of the FIFO, it's no big deal > because the processor on the card can obviously pump data > sufficiently to handle the physical I/O it is supporting for > that card , and the FIFO is large enough such that the > shorter higher-speed burst on the PCI bus will be sufficient > enough to use the PCI bus bandwidth efficiently. What bandwidth > cannot be used by one card will certainly be used by another. > > This just isn't an issue. Shorter bursts are less efficient, which implies that 64bit PCI transfers can be not much better than 32bit with sustained bursts, which is my point. You could easily have a 64-bit pci card that was slower than (or the same as) a 32-bit one due to this factor. Im not arguing that it doesnt work, only that its not a cureall to the throughput problem. Dennis To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message