On 05/07/2012 04:20 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > On 05/07/2012 05:36 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 05/07/2012 01:58 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: >>> On 05/07/2012 02:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >>>> On 05/07/2012 11:29 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>>>> This is looking pretty good and complete now - any objections >>>>> from anyone to trying this out in a separate x86 topic tree? >>>> >>>> No objections, instead an >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> > [...] >>> >>> (Less is better. Below is time elapsed in sec for x86_64_defconfig >>> (3+3 runs)). >>> >>> BASE BASE+patch %improvement >>> mean (sd) mean (sd) >>> case 1x: 66.0566 (74.0304) 61.3233 (68.8299) 7.16552 >>> case 2x: 1253.2 (1795.74) 131.606 (137.358) 89.4984 >>> case 3x: 3431.04 (5297.26) 134.964 (149.861) 96.0664 >>> >> >> You're calculating the improvement incorrectly. In the last case, it's >> not 96%, rather it's 2400% (25x). Similarly the second case is about >> 900% faster. >> > > You are right, > my %improvement was intended to be like > if > 1) base takes 100 sec ==> patch takes 93 sec > 2) base takes 100 sec ==> patch takes 11 sec > 3) base takes 100 sec ==> patch takes 4 sec > > The above is more confusing (and incorrect!). > > Better is what you told which boils to 10x and 25x improvement in case > 2 and case 3. And IMO, this *really* gives the feeling of magnitude of > improvement with patches. > > I ll change script to report that way :). > btw, this is on non-PLE hardware, right? What are the numbers for PLE? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
