[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
- To: Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 19:08:51 +0530
- Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx>, KVM <kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>, X86 <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:14:18 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
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<avi@xxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
(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.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
