From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 16:22:42 +0300
Message-ID: <4FA7CCA2.4030408@redhat.com>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>,
	KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
	Xen Devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, X86 <x86@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@citrix.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@amd.com>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Return-path: <virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <4FA7CC05.50808@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

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