Øyvind Harboe wrote: > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Magnus Lundin <lun...@mlu.mine.nu> wrote: > >> Ųyvind Harboe wrote: >> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Zach Welch <z...@superlucidity.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 09:33 +0200, Ųyvind Harboe wrote: >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> >>>>> I have to give a bit of thought on how to best to profile this, i.e. to >>>>> find the precise location of the culprit. >>>>> >>>>> Any ideas? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I have had success with oprofile. This would give you what you need. >>>> >>>> >>> We effectively need to know the *stack trace* for those >>> jtag_execute_queue()'s >>> that are just sitting there waiting for the driver to complete. >>> >>> >>> >> You are wasting your time, I did some work on the STM32 flash performance >> problems a few weeks ago, and improved write speed from 5kB/s to 15kB/s or >> more, and the only real big difference was removing extra >> jtag_execute_queue() calls, and thus avoiding the USB roundtrip delay. >> >> The numbers for ARM7 targets are worse for single stepping here the new code >> is less than half the speed of the old one. >> > > Thanks for the pointer, patience and constructive feedback. > > I *will* address these performance problems next. > > I have a few more things I have to iron out, then I'll start on performance. > If someone has a bug/regression that comes first though. > > > Stop trading USB performance for Zylin performance, stop changing the JTAG API, improving the implementation is nice though. Listen to Laurent this time, he is right !!
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
