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:
(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.
speedup calculation is clear.
I think confusion for me was more because of the types of benchmarks.
I always did
|(patch - base)| * 100 / base
So, for
(1) lesser is better sort of benchmarks,
improvement calculation would be like
|(patched - base)| * 100/ patched
e.g for kernbench,
suppose base = 150 sec
patched = 100 sec
improvement = 50 % ( = 33% degradation of base)
(2) for higher is better sort of benchmarks improvement calculation
would be like
|(patched - base)| * 100 / base
for e.g say for pgbench/ ebizzy...
base = 100 tps (transactions per sec)
patched = 150 tps
improvement = 50 % of pathched kernel ( OR 33 % degradation of base )
Is this is what generally done? just wanted to be on same page before
publishing benchmark results, other than kernbench.
--
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
