Hi Laurent, Thanks for your reply. Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 02/05/2018 16:17, Punit Agrawal wrote: >> Hi Laurent, >> >> One query below - >> >> Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> [...] >> >>> >>> Ebizzy: >>> ------- >>> The test is counting the number of records per second it can manage, the >>> higher is the best. I run it like this 'ebizzy -mTRp'. To get consistent >>> result I repeated the test 100 times and measure the average result. The >>> number is the record processes per second, the higher is the best. >>> >>> BASE SPF delta >>> 16 CPUs x86 VM 12405.52 91104.52 634.39% >>> 80 CPUs P8 node 37880.01 76201.05 101.16% >> >> How do you measure the number of records processed? Is there a specific >> version of ebizzy that reports this? I couldn't find a way to get this >> information with the ebizzy that's included in ltp. > > I'm using the original one : http://ebizzy.sourceforge.net/ Turns out I missed the records processed in the verbose output enabled by "-vvv". Sorry for the noise. [...] >> >> A trial run showed increased fault handling when SPF is enabled on an >> 8-core ARM64 system running 4.17-rc3. I am using a port of your x86 >> patch to enable spf on arm64. >> >> SPF >> --- >> >> Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -vvvmTRp': >> >> 1,322,736 faults >> 1,299,241 software/config=11/ >> >> 10.005348034 seconds time elapsed >> >> No SPF >> ----- >> >> Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -vvvmTRp': >> >> 708,916 faults >> 0 software/config=11/ >> >> 10.005807432 seconds time elapsed > > Thanks for sharing these good numbers ! A quick run showed 71041 (no-spf) vs 122306 (spf) records/s (~72% improvement). I'd like to do some runs on a slightly larger system (if I can get my hands on one) to see how the patches behave. I'll also have a closer look at your series - the previous comments were just somethings I observed as part of trying the functionality on arm64. Thanks, Punit
