Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752342Ab2EMSAV (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 May 2012 14:00:21 -0400 Received: from e23smtp08.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.141]:37341 "EHLO e23smtp08.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751479Ab2EMSAT (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 May 2012 14:00:19 -0400 Message-ID: <4FAFF680.6030307@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 23:29:28 +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> In-Reply-To: <4FA7BABA.4040700@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 12051307-5140-0000-0000-0000014E561A Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1825 Lines: 61 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: >> (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. > speedup calculation is clear. I think confusion for me was more because of the types of benchmarks. I always did |(patch - base)| * 100 / base So, for (1) lesser is better sort of benchmarks, improvement calculation would be like |(patched - base)| * 100/ patched e.g for kernbench, suppose base = 150 sec patched = 100 sec improvement = 50 % ( = 33% degradation of base) (2) for higher is better sort of benchmarks improvement calculation would be like |(patched - base)| * 100 / base for e.g say for pgbench/ ebizzy... base = 100 tps (transactions per sec) patched = 150 tps improvement = 50 % of pathched kernel ( OR 33 % degradation of base ) Is this is what generally done? just wanted to be on same page before publishing benchmark results, other than kernbench. -- 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/