Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756299Ab2EGNXU (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2012 09:23:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54701 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754153Ab2EGNXT (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2012 09:23:19 -0400 Message-ID: <4FA7CCA2.4030408@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 16:22:42 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Raghavendra K T CC: Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , "H. Peter Anvin" , Marcelo Tosatti , X86 , Gleb Natapov , Ingo Molnar , Attilio Rao , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Virtualization , Xen Devel , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, KVM , Andi Kleen , Stefano Stabellini , Stephan Diestelhorst , LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks References: <20120502100610.13206.40.sendpatchset@codeblue.in.ibm.com> <20120507082928.GI16608@gmail.com> <4FA7888F.80505@redhat.com> <4FA7AAD8.6050003@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4FA7BABA.4040700@redhat.com> <4FA7CC05.50808@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4FA7CC05.50808@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1930 Lines: 55 On 05/07/2012 04:20 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > On 05/07/2012 05:36 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 05/07/2012 01:58 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: >>> On 05/07/2012 02:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >>>> On 05/07/2012 11:29 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>>>> This is looking pretty good and complete now - any objections >>>>> from anyone to trying this out in a separate x86 topic tree? >>>> >>>> No objections, instead an >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Avi Kivity >>>> > [...] >>> >>> (Less is better. Below is time elapsed in sec for x86_64_defconfig >>> (3+3 runs)). >>> >>> BASE BASE+patch %improvement >>> mean (sd) mean (sd) >>> case 1x: 66.0566 (74.0304) 61.3233 (68.8299) 7.16552 >>> case 2x: 1253.2 (1795.74) 131.606 (137.358) 89.4984 >>> case 3x: 3431.04 (5297.26) 134.964 (149.861) 96.0664 >>> >> >> You're calculating the improvement incorrectly. In the last case, it's >> not 96%, rather it's 2400% (25x). Similarly the second case is about >> 900% faster. >> > > You are right, > my %improvement was intended to be like > if > 1) base takes 100 sec ==> patch takes 93 sec > 2) base takes 100 sec ==> patch takes 11 sec > 3) base takes 100 sec ==> patch takes 4 sec > > The above is more confusing (and incorrect!). > > Better is what you told which boils to 10x and 25x improvement in case > 2 and case 3. And IMO, this *really* gives the feeling of magnitude of > improvement with patches. > > I ll change script to report that way :). > btw, this is on non-PLE hardware, right? What are the numbers for PLE? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/