Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:06:03 +0530 | From | Raghavendra K T <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning |
| |
* Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com> [2013-01-10 00:27:23]:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 06:20:35PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: > > I ran kernbench on 32 core (mx3850) machine with 3.8-rc2 base. > > x base_3.8rc2 > > + rik_backoff > > N Min Max Median Avg Stddev > > x 8 222.977 231.16 227.735 227.388 3.1512986 > > + 8 218.75 232.347 229.1035 228.25425 4.2730225 > > No difference proven at 95.0% confidence > > I got similar results on smaller systems (1 socket, dual-cores and quad-cores) > when running Rik's latest series, no big difference for good nor for worse, > but I also think Rik's work is meant to address bigger systems with more cores > contending for any given spinlock.
I was able to do the test on same 32 core machine with 4 guests (8GB RAM, 32 vcpu). Here are the results
base = 3.8-rc2 patched = base + Rik V3 backoff series [patch 1-4]
+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ kernbench (sec lower is better) +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ base stdev patched stdev %improve +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ 44.3000 2.0404 46.7928 1.7518 -5.62709 94.8262 5.1444 102.4737 7.8406 -8.06475 156.0540 14.5797 167.6888 9.7110 -7.45562 202.3225 15.8906 213.1435 17.1778 -5.34839 +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ sysbench (sec lower is better) +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ base stdev patched stdev %improve +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ 16.8512 0.4164 17.7301 0.3761 -5.21565 13.0411 0.4115 12.9380 0.1554 0.79058 18.4573 0.2123 18.4662 0.2005 -0.04822 24.2021 0.1713 24.3690 0.3270 -0.68961 +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ ebizzy (record/sec higher is better) +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ base stdev patched stdev %improve +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ 2494.4000 27.5447 2400.6000 83.4255 -3.76042 2636.6000 302.9658 2757.5000 147.5137 4.58545 2236.8333 239.6531 2131.6667 156.1534 -4.70158 1768.8750 142.5437 1901.3750 295.2147 7.49064 +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ dbench (throughput in MB/sec higher is better) +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ base stdev patched stdev %improve +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ 10076.9180 2410.9655 5870.7460 4297.4532 xxxxxxx 2152.5220 88.2853 1517.8270 61.9742 -29.48611 1334.9608 34.3247 1078.4275 38.2288 -19.21654 946.6355 32.0426 753.0757 25.5302 -20.44713 +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
Please note that I have put dbench_1x result as xxxx since I observed very high variance in the result.
|  |