From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> To: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, akpm@linux-foundation.org, riel@redhat.com, mgorman@suse.de, ak@linux.intel.com, peterz@infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mm: add FAULT_AROUND_ORDER Kconfig paramater for powerpc Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:02:41 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20140404070241.GA984@gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1396592835-24767-3-git-send-email-maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> * Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Performance data for different FAULT_AROUND_ORDER values from 4 socket > Power7 system (128 Threads and 128GB memory) is below. perf stat with > repeat of 5 is used to get the stddev values. This patch create > FAULT_AROUND_ORDER Kconfig parameter and defaults it to 3 based on the > performance data. > > FAULT_AROUND_ORDER Baseline 1 3 4 5 7 > > Linux build (make -j64) > minor-faults 7184385 5874015 4567289 4318518 4193815 4159193 > times in seconds 61.433776136 60.865935292 59.245368038 60.630675011 60.56587624 59.828271924 > stddev for time ( +- 1.18% ) ( +- 1.78% ) ( +- 0.44% ) ( +- 2.03% ) ( +- 1.66% ) ( +- 1.45% ) Ok, this is better, but it is still rather incomplete statistically, please also calculate the percentage difference to baseline, so that the stddev becomes meaningful and can be compared to something! As an example I did this for the first line of measurements (all errors in the numbers are mine, this was done manually), and it gives: > stddev for time ( +- 1.18% ) ( +- 1.78% ) ( +- 0.44% ) ( +- 2.03% ) ( +- 1.66% ) ( +- 1.45% ) +0.9% +3.5% +1.3% +1.4% +2.6% This shows that there is probably a statistically significant (positiv) effect from the change, but from these numbers alone I would not draw any quantitative (sizing, tuning) conclusions, because in 3 out of 5 cases the stddev was larger than the effect, so the resulting percentages are not comparable. Please do this calculation for all the other lines as well and also close all the numbers with a conclusion section where you *analyze* the results, outline the statistics and compare the various workloads and how the tuning affects them and don't force the readers of the commit guess what it all means and how significant it all is! Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> To: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, akpm@linux-foundation.org, riel@redhat.com, mgorman@suse.de, ak@linux.intel.com, peterz@infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mm: add FAULT_AROUND_ORDER Kconfig paramater for powerpc Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:02:41 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20140404070241.GA984@gmail.com> (raw) Message-ID: <20140404070241.s2IuRQeiY5ru5I22CrdFgpJgEefx8kqznhTkvJ1Tqso@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1396592835-24767-3-git-send-email-maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> * Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Performance data for different FAULT_AROUND_ORDER values from 4 socket > Power7 system (128 Threads and 128GB memory) is below. perf stat with > repeat of 5 is used to get the stddev values. This patch create > FAULT_AROUND_ORDER Kconfig parameter and defaults it to 3 based on the > performance data. > > FAULT_AROUND_ORDER Baseline 1 3 4 5 7 > > Linux build (make -j64) > minor-faults 7184385 5874015 4567289 4318518 4193815 4159193 > times in seconds 61.433776136 60.865935292 59.245368038 60.630675011 60.56587624 59.828271924 > stddev for time ( +- 1.18% ) ( +- 1.78% ) ( +- 0.44% ) ( +- 2.03% ) ( +- 1.66% ) ( +- 1.45% ) Ok, this is better, but it is still rather incomplete statistically, please also calculate the percentage difference to baseline, so that the stddev becomes meaningful and can be compared to something! As an example I did this for the first line of measurements (all errors in the numbers are mine, this was done manually), and it gives: > stddev for time ( +- 1.18% ) ( +- 1.78% ) ( +- 0.44% ) ( +- 2.03% ) ( +- 1.66% ) ( +- 1.45% ) +0.9% +3.5% +1.3% +1.4% +2.6% This shows that there is probably a statistically significant (positiv) effect from the change, but from these numbers alone I would not draw any quantitative (sizing, tuning) conclusions, because in 3 out of 5 cases the stddev was larger than the effect, so the resulting percentages are not comparable. Please do this calculation for all the other lines as well and also close all the numbers with a conclusion section where you *analyze* the results, outline the statistics and compare the various workloads and how the tuning affects them and don't force the readers of the commit guess what it all means and how significant it all is! Thanks, Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-04 7:02 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-04-04 6:27 [PATCH V2 0/2] FAULT_AROUND_ORDER patchset performance data for powerpc Madhavan Srinivasan 2014-04-04 6:27 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] mm: move FAULT_AROUND_ORDER to arch/ Madhavan Srinivasan 2014-04-04 6:27 ` Madhavan Srinivasan 2014-04-04 13:17 ` Kirill A. Shutemov 2014-04-04 13:17 ` Kirill A. Shutemov 2014-04-09 1:14 ` Madhavan Srinivasan 2014-04-04 16:18 ` Dave Hansen 2014-04-04 16:18 ` Dave Hansen 2014-04-04 17:50 ` David Miller 2014-04-09 1:44 ` Madhavan Srinivasan 2014-04-07 5:45 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt 2014-04-07 5:45 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt 2014-04-09 1:32 ` Madhavan Srinivasan 2014-04-09 1:32 ` Madhavan Srinivasan 2014-04-09 8:20 ` Peter Zijlstra 2014-04-09 8:20 ` Peter Zijlstra 2014-04-09 15:48 ` Dave Hansen 2014-04-09 15:48 ` Dave Hansen 2014-04-10 8:29 ` Madhavan Srinivasan 2014-04-10 8:29 ` Madhavan Srinivasan 2014-04-09 15:46 ` Dave Hansen 2014-04-09 15:46 ` Dave Hansen 2014-04-22 7:22 ` Rusty Russell 2014-04-22 7:22 ` Rusty Russell 2014-04-04 6:27 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] mm: add FAULT_AROUND_ORDER Kconfig paramater for powerpc Madhavan Srinivasan 2014-04-04 6:27 ` Madhavan Srinivasan 2014-04-04 7:02 ` Ingo Molnar [this message] 2014-04-04 7:02 ` Ingo Molnar 2014-04-04 7:10 ` Ingo Molnar 2014-04-04 7:10 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20140404070241.GA984@gmail.com \ --to=mingo@kernel.org \ --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \ --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \ --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \ --cc=maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \ --cc=mgorman@suse.de \ --cc=paulus@samba.org \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=riel@redhat.com \ --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \ --cc=x86@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).