* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Performance data for different FAULT_AROUND_ORDER values from 4 > > socket Power7 system (128 Threads and 128GB memory) is below. perf > > stat with repeat of 5 is used to get the stddev values. This patch > > create FAULT_AROUND_ORDER Kconfig parameter and defaults it to 3 > > based on the performance data. > > > > FAULT_AROUND_ORDER Baseline 1 3 4 5 7 > > > > Linux build (make -j64) > > minor-faults 7184385 5874015 4567289 4318518 4193815 4159193 > > times in seconds 61.433776136 60.865935292 59.245368038 60.630675011 60.56587624 59.828271924 > > stddev for time ( +- 1.18% ) ( +- 1.78% ) ( +- 0.44% ) ( +- 2.03% ) ( +- 1.66% ) ( +- 1.45% ) > > Ok, this is better, but it is still rather incomplete statistically, > please also calculate the percentage difference to baseline, so that > the stddev becomes meaningful and can be compared to something! > > As an example I did this for the first line of measurements (all > errors in the numbers are mine, this was done manually), and it > gives: > > > stddev for time ( +- 1.18% ) ( +- 1.78% ) ( +- 0.44% ) ( +- 2.03% ) ( +- 1.66% ) ( +- 1.45% ) > +0.9% +3.5% +1.3% +1.4% +2.6% > > This shows that there is probably a statistically significant > (positiv) effect from the change, but from these numbers alone I > would not draw any quantitative (sizing, tuning) conclusions, > because in 3 out of 5 cases the stddev was larger than the effect, > so the resulting percentages are not comparable. Also note that because we calculate the percentage by dividing result with baseline, the stddev of the two values roughly adds up. So for example the second column the true noise is around 1.5%, not 0.4% So for good sizing decisions the stddev must be 'comfortably' below the effect. (or sizing should be done based on the other workloads yu tested, I have not checked them.) It also makes sense to run more measurements to reduce the stddev of the baseline. So if each measurement is run 3 times then it makes sense to run the baseline 6 times, this gives a ~30% improvement in the confidence of our result, at just a small increase in test time. [ For such cases it might also make sense to script all of that, combined with a debug patch that puts the tuned fault-around value into a dynamic knob in /proc/sys/, so that you can run the full measurement in a single pass, with no reboot and with no human intervention. ] Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>