On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 09:24:35AM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > 2016-05-20 5:20 GMT+09:00 Thomas Garnier :
> >> I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles
> >> per size across
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 09:24:35AM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > 2016-05-20 5:20 GMT+09:00 Thomas Garnier :
> >> I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles
> >> per size across 20 usage:
> >
> > I can't understand
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 2016-05-20 5:20 GMT+09:00 Thomas Garnier :
>> I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles
>> per size across 20 usage:
>
> I can't understand what you did here. Maybe, it's due to
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 2016-05-20 5:20 GMT+09:00 Thomas Garnier :
>> I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles
>> per size across 20 usage:
>
> I can't understand what you did here. Maybe, it's due to my poor Engling.
> Please explain more.
2016-05-20 5:20 GMT+09:00 Thomas Garnier :
> I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles
> per size across 20 usage:
I can't understand what you did here. Maybe, it's due to my poor Engling.
Please explain more. You did single thread test? Why minimum
2016-05-20 5:20 GMT+09:00 Thomas Garnier :
> I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles
> per size across 20 usage:
I can't understand what you did here. Maybe, it's due to my poor Engling.
Please explain more. You did single thread test? Why minimum cycles
rather than
I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles
per size across 20 usage:
size,before,after
8,63.00,64.50 (102.38%)
16,64.50,65.00 (100.78%)
32,65.00,65.00 (100.00%)
64,66.00,65.00 (98.48%)
128,66.00,65.00 (98.48%)
256,64.00,64.00 (100.00%)
512,65.00,66.00 (101.54%)
I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles
per size across 20 usage:
size,before,after
8,63.00,64.50 (102.38%)
16,64.50,65.00 (100.78%)
32,65.00,65.00 (100.00%)
64,66.00,65.00 (98.48%)
128,66.00,65.00 (98.48%)
256,64.00,64.00 (100.00%)
512,65.00,66.00 (101.54%)
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:12:13PM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> I thought the mix of slab_test & kernbench would show a diverse
> picture on perf data. Is there another test that you think would be
> useful?
Single thread testing on slab_test would be meaningful because it also
touch the
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:12:13PM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> I thought the mix of slab_test & kernbench would show a diverse
> picture on perf data. Is there another test that you think would be
> useful?
Single thread testing on slab_test would be meaningful because it also
touch the
I thought the mix of slab_test & kernbench would show a diverse
picture on perf data. Is there another test that you think would be
useful?
Thanks,
Thomas
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>
>> Yes, I agree
I thought the mix of slab_test & kernbench would show a diverse
picture on perf data. Is there another test that you think would be
useful?
Thanks,
Thomas
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>
>> Yes, I agree that it is not
On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> Yes, I agree that it is not related to the changes.
Could you please provide meaningful test data?
On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> Yes, I agree that it is not related to the changes.
Could you please provide meaningful test data?
Yes, I agree that it is not related to the changes.
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 0.On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>
>> slab_test, before:
>> 1 times kmalloc(8) -> 67 cycles kfree -> 101 cycles
>> 1 times kmalloc(16) -> 68 cycles
Yes, I agree that it is not related to the changes.
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 0.On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>
>> slab_test, before:
>> 1 times kmalloc(8) -> 67 cycles kfree -> 101 cycles
>> 1 times kmalloc(16) -> 68 cycles kfree -> 109
0.On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> slab_test, before:
> 1 times kmalloc(8) -> 67 cycles kfree -> 101 cycles
> 1 times kmalloc(16) -> 68 cycles kfree -> 109 cycles
> 1 times kmalloc(32) -> 76 cycles kfree -> 119 cycles
> 1 times kmalloc(64) -> 88 cycles kfree -> 114
0.On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> slab_test, before:
> 1 times kmalloc(8) -> 67 cycles kfree -> 101 cycles
> 1 times kmalloc(16) -> 68 cycles kfree -> 109 cycles
> 1 times kmalloc(32) -> 76 cycles kfree -> 119 cycles
> 1 times kmalloc(64) -> 88 cycles kfree -> 114
18 matches
Mail list logo