On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:57:13AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/27/2017 10:04 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> >How do we interpret these numbers?  Are they times, or speed?  Is
> >larger better or worse?
> 
> Sorry for not including the details. They are time in seconds. Test case is
> a modified mmap_bench included in powerpc/selftest.
> 
> >
> >Can you give us the mean and standard deviation for each set of 5
> >please?
> >
> 
> powernv without patch
> median= 51.432255
> stdev = 0.370835
> 
> with patch
> median = 50.739922
> stdev = 0.06419662
> 
> pseries without patch
> median = 116.617884
> stdev = 3.04531023
> 
> with patch no hcall
> median = 119.42494
> stdev = 0.85874552
> 
> with patch and hcall
> median = 117.735808
> stdev = 2.7624151

So on powernv, the patch set *improves* performance by about 1.3%
(almost 2 standard deviations).  Do we know why that is?

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.)

Paul.

Reply via email to