* Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/01/2013 02:34 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > >On 08/01/2013 01:15 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >>>Shall I consider this as an ack for kvm part? > >>> > >>For everything except 18/18. For that I still want to see numbers. But > >>18/18 is pretty independent from the reset of the series so it should > >>not stop the reset from going in. > > > >Yes. agreed. > >I am going to evaluate patch 18 separately and come with results for > >that. Now we can consider only 1-17 patches. > > > > Gleb, > > 32 core machine with HT off 32 vcpu guests. > base = 3.11-rc + patch 1 -17 pvspinlock_v11 > patched = base + patch 18 > > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > dbench (Throughput in MB/sec higher is better) > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > base stdev patched stdev %improvement > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > 1x 14584.3800 146.9074 14705.1000 163.1060 0.82773 > 2x 1713.7300 32.8750 1717.3200 45.5979 0.20948 > 3x 967.8212 42.0257 971.8855 18.8532 0.41994 > 4x 685.2764 25.7150 694.5881 8.3907 1.35882 > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ Please list stddev in percentage as well ... a blind stab gave me these figures: > base stdev patched stdev %improvement > 3x 967.8212 4.3% 971.8855 1.8% 0.4 That makes the improvement an order of magnitude smaller than the noise of the measurement ... i.e. totally inconclusive. Also please cut the excessive decimal points: with 2-4% noise what point is there in 5 decimal point results?? Thanks, Ingo -- 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
