Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

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@redhat.com>
>>>>
> [...]
>>>
>>> (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