Hi,
Got the following tip-bit about this patch performance impact.
Cheers,
Longman
----------------------------------------------------
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a 125.4% improvement of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops due to commit:
commit: a150752454e4aea37a44d7eb5baf5a538bcad6fc ("locking/rwsem: Enable readers spinning on writer")
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Waiman-Long/locking-rwsem-Enable-reader-optimistic-spinning/20170602-071830
in testcase: will-it-scale
on test machine: 8 threads Ivy Bridge with 16G memory
with following parameters:
nr_task: 100%
mode: thread
test: malloc1
cpufreq_governor: performance
test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two.
test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale
Details are as below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
To reproduce:
git clone https://github.com/01org/lkp-tests.git
cd lkp-tests
bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
bin/lkp run job.yaml
testcase/path_params/tbox_group/run: will-it-scale/100%-thread-malloc1-performance/lkp-ivb-d01
f25a7e717bfb87ab a150752454e4aea37a44d7eb5b
---------------- --------------------------
%stddev change %stddev
\ | \
6092 ± 12% 125% 13734 will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
14641877 ± 12% 126% 33029197 will-it-scale.time.minor_page_faults
15.03 ± 13% 57% 23.66 ± 12% will-it-scale.time.user_time
40731914 ± 12% 46% 59414926 ± 5% will-it-scale.time.voluntary_context_switches
11954 ± 18% 28% 15275 ± 11% will-it-scale.time.maximum_resident_set_size
142 22% 174 will-it-scale.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
414 21% 502 will-it-scale.time.system_time
539104 -78% 117329 ± 13% will-it-scale.time.involuntary_context_switches
31904937 ± 13% 55% 49519854 ± 5% interrupts.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
129303 ± 10% 48% 191426 ± 4% vmstat.system.in
297417 ± 11% 42% 421902 ± 4% vmstat.system.cs
25.73 26.28 turbostat.CorWatt
31.60 32.21 turbostat.PkgWatt
22.67 19% 27.03 turbostat.%Busy
837 20% 1006 turbostat.Avg_MHz
1271 ± 36% 6e+04 56891 ± 74% latency_stats.max.call_rwsem_down_read_failed.__do_page_fault.do_page_fault.page_fault
2249 ± 19% 5e+04 52972 ± 86% latency_stats.max.call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable.vm_mmap_pgoff.SyS_mmap_pgoff.SyS_mmap.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
2264 ± 19% 5e+04 52187 ± 88% latency_stats.max.call_rwsem_down_write_failed_killable.vm_munmap.SyS_munmap.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
9934 ± 25% 5e+04 57497 ± 75% latency_stats.max.max
14956191 ± 12% 123% 33343207 perf-stat.page-faults
14956191 ± 12% 123% 33343206 perf-stat.minor-faults
2.266e+11 ± 4% 46% 3.318e+11 perf-stat.branch-instructions
3.231e+11 ± 3% 39% 4.485e+11 perf-stat.dTLB-loads
1.155e+12 ± 3% 38% 1.593e+12 perf-stat.instructions
0.02 ± 11% 103% 0.05 ± 6% perf-stat.dTLB-store-miss-rate%
86305241 ± 8% 74% 1.502e+08 ± 6% perf-stat.dTLB-store-misses
0.56 14% 0.64 perf-stat.ipc
2.057e+12 21% 2.481e+12 perf-stat.cpu-cycles
3.674e+11 ± 3% -15% 3.136e+11 perf-stat.dTLB-stores
0.76 ± 3% -32% 0.51 ± 4% perf-stat.branch-miss-rate%
1869 ± 5% 30% 2432 ± 8% perf-stat.instructions-per-iTLB-miss
6.014e+10 ± 8% -48% 3.146e+10 ± 5% perf-stat.cache-references
0.29 ± 6% -17% 0.24 ± 12% perf-stat.dTLB-load-miss-rate%
90408163 ± 11% 42% 1.283e+08 ± 4% perf-stat.context-switches
182383 ± 13% -55% 82982 ± 49% perf-stat.cpu-migrations
[*] bisect-good sample
[O] bisect-bad sample
Disclaimer:
Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
design or configuration may affect actual performance.
Thanks,
Xiaolong
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
