From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Raghavendra K T Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V10 0/18] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:19:06 +0530 Message-ID: <51C84E52.8060900@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20130624124014.27508.8906.sendpatchset@codeblue.in.ibm.com> <20130624131716.GA11948@hawk.usersys.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130624131716.GA11948@hawk.usersys.redhat.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Jones Cc: gleb@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com, jeremy@goop.org, x86@kernel.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, hpa@zytor.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, peterz@infradead.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andi@firstfloor.org, attilio.rao@citrix.com, ouyang@cs.pitt.edu, gregkh@suse.de, agraf@suse.de, chegu_vinod@hp.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, avi.kivity@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stephan.diestelhorst@amd.com, riel@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/24/2013 06:47 PM, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 06:10:14PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: >> >> Results: >> ======= >> base = 3.10-rc2 kernel >> patched = base + this series >> >> The test was on 32 core (model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X7560) HT disabled >> with 32 KVM guest vcpu 8GB RAM. > > Have you ever tried to get results with HT enabled? > I have not done it yet with the latest. I will get that result. >> >> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ >> ebizzy (records/sec) higher is better >> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ >> base stdev patched stdev %improvement >> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ >> 1x 5574.9000 237.4997 5618.0000 94.0366 0.77311 >> 2x 2741.5000 561.3090 3332.0000 102.4738 21.53930 >> 3x 2146.2500 216.7718 2302.3333 76.3870 7.27237 >> 4x 1663.0000 141.9235 1753.7500 83.5220 5.45701 >> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > > This looks good. Are your ebizzy results consistent run to run > though? > yes.. ebizzy looked more consistent. >> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ >> dbench (Throughput) higher is better >> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ >> base stdev patched stdev %improvement >> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ >> 1x 14111.5600 754.4525 14645.9900 114.3087 3.78718 >> 2x 2481.6270 71.2665 2667.1280 73.8193 7.47498 >> 3x 1510.2483 31.8634 1503.8792 36.0777 -0.42173 >> 4x 1029.4875 16.9166 1039.7069 43.8840 0.99267 >> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > > Hmm, I wonder what 2.5x looks like. Also, the 3% improvement with > no overcommit is interesting. What's happening there? It makes > me wonder what < 1x looks like. > I 'll try to get 0.5x and 2.5x run for dbench. > thanks, > drew > > >