From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3ygzbS6tnFzDrTs for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:41:56 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vAL8ddwN127033 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 03:41:53 -0500 Received: from e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.106]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ece900ffb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 03:41:53 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:41:51 -0000 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Paul Mackerras Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] Remove hash page table slot tracking from linux PTE In-Reply-To: <20171027054136.GC27483@fergus.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <20171027040833.3644-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171027043430.GA27483@fergus.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20171027054136.GC27483@fergus.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:11:44 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <871sks10s7.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Paul Mackerras writes: > On pseries, performance is about 2.4% worse without new hcalls, but > that is less than 1 standard deviation. With new hcalls, performance > is 0.95% worse, only a third of a standard deviation. I think we need > to do more measurements to try to get a more accurate picture here. > > Were the pseries numbers done on KVM or PowerVM? Could you do a set > of measurements on the other one too please? (I assume the numbers > with the new hcall were done on KVM, and can't be done on PowerVM.) > I got ebizzy and kernel compile run on powernv and powervm config. You can find the numbers below. I did 10 iterations and only added stdev and median below. I do find powernv do better with patch series. ebizzy run ----------- PowerNV (ebizzy -m -n 1000 -P -s 512000 -S 100 -t 100): With patches, 10 iterations results records/sec. stdev = 37.60 median = 7411.5 Without patch: stdev = 23.071 median = 7350 PowerVM numbers(./ebizzy -m -n 1000 -P -s 512000 -S 100 -t 30): With patch (no new hcalls): stdev = 20.721 median = 6955.5 Without patch stdev = 35.049 median = 7081 kernel compile:(time -p) --------------------------- PowerNV: With patches: Real ---- stdev = 1.624 median = 61.56 User: stdev = 61.204 median = 4816.73 Sys: stdev = 4.367 median = 387.575 Without patches: Real: stdev = 1.318 median = 63.635 User: stdev = 50.531 median = 4820.51 Sys: stdev = 6.409 median = 389.765 PowerVM numbers: ------------------- With patches (no new hcalls): Real: stdev = 3.016 median = 442.745 User: stdev = 9.738 median = 5507.87 Sys: stdev = 0.223 median = 176.455 Witout patches: Real: stdev = 0.720 median = 442.445 User: stdev = 8.621 median = 5501.615 Sys: stdev = 0.189 median = 173.3