From: "Cédric Le Goater" <clg@kaod.org>
To: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413@gmail.com>,
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, <clombard@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: powernv gitlab ci regression
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 23:30:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b7c50c1b-16f2-3fdd-dbd7-944ddf150947@kaod.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8ab3b465-dfec-8579-2b96-e0383f9bcc6f@gmail.com>
> Just rewrote the fore-mentioned patch using TCG ops. Here's some numbers running the tests on
> my local machine:
>
> - using current master:
>
> (1/1) tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_powernv8: PASS (71.00 s)
> (1/1) tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_powernv8: PASS (69.57 s)
> (1/1) tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_powernv8: PASS (76.04 s)
>
>
> (1/1) tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_powernv9: PASS (72.62 s)
> (1/1) tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_powernv9: PASS (76.50 s)
> (1/1) tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_powernv9: PASS (73.58 s)
>
>
> - after my TCG Ops rewrite to count instructions:
>
>
> (1/1) tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_powernv8: PASS (39.97 s)
> (1/1) tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_powernv8: PASS (40.19 s)
> (1/1) tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_powernv8: PASS (41.76 s)
>
> (1/1) tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_powernv9: PASS (40.88 s)
> (1/1) tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_powernv9: PASS (41.49 s)
> (1/1) tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_powernv9: PASS (42.04 s)
>
>
> Also, there's a high possibility that the code I wrote is not optimized since I'm not well
> versed with TCG ops/code. I expect that after a couple of reviews from Richard we might be able
> to bring down those numbers even further.
This is behaving like 6.2. We should be fine (until we add more counters :)
> I'll clean this up and send for review.
ok. We might have a last ppc PR in 2021.
Thanks a lot,
C.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-21 22:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-20 21:35 powernv gitlab ci regression Richard Henderson
2021-12-21 2:37 ` Daniel Henrique Barboza
2021-12-21 8:20 ` Cédric Le Goater
2021-12-21 9:44 ` Daniel Henrique Barboza
2021-12-21 21:33 ` Daniel Henrique Barboza
2021-12-21 22:30 ` Cédric Le Goater [this message]
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=b7c50c1b-16f2-3fdd-dbd7-944ddf150947@kaod.org \
--to=clg@kaod.org \
--cc=clombard@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=danielhb413@gmail.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.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).