linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2014-04-04  7:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ 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 13:17   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-04-09  1:14     ` Madhavan Srinivasan
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
2014-04-09  1:32     ` Madhavan Srinivasan
2014-04-09  8:20       ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-04-09 15:48         ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-10  8:29           ` Madhavan Srinivasan
2014-04-09 15:46       ` Dave Hansen
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  7:02   ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
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: link
Be 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).