Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756587Ab2EGNjZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2012 09:39:25 -0400 Received: from e28smtp02.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.2]:36995 "EHLO e28smtp02.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756233Ab2EGNjX (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2012 09:39:23 -0400 Message-ID: <4FA7D06B.60005@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 19:08:51 +0530 From: Raghavendra K T Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avi Kivity 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> <4FA7CCA2.4030408@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4FA7CCA2.4030408@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 12050713-5816-0000-0000-00000276C61E Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2103 Lines: 57 On 05/07/2012 06:52 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > 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? > Sure. I 'll get hold of a PLE mc and come up with the numbers soon. but I 'll expect the improvement around 1-3% as it was in last version. -- 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/