lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [UPDATED][PATCH][mmotm] Help Root Memory Cgroup Resource Counters Scale Better (v5)
    * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> [2009-08-13 10:35:24]:

    >
    > * Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Without Patch
    > >
    > > Performance counter stats for '/home/balbir/parallel_pagefault':
    > >
    > > 5826093739340 cycles # 809.989 M/sec
    > > 408883496292 instructions # 0.070 IPC
    > > 7057079452 cache-references # 0.981 M/sec
    > > 3036086243 cache-misses # 0.422 M/sec
    >
    > > With this patch applied
    > >
    > > Performance counter stats for '/home/balbir/parallel_pagefault':
    > >
    > > 5957054385619 cycles # 828.333 M/sec
    > > 1058117350365 instructions # 0.178 IPC
    > > 9161776218 cache-references # 1.274 M/sec
    > > 1920494280 cache-misses # 0.267 M/sec
    >
    > Nice how the instruction count and the IPC value incraesed, and the
    > cache-miss count decreased.
    >
    > Btw., a 'perf stat' suggestion: you can also make use of built-in
    > error bars via repeating parallel_pagefault N times:
    >
    > aldebaran:~> perf stat --repeat 3 /bin/ls
    >
    > Performance counter stats for '/bin/ls' (3 runs):
    >
    > 1.108886 task-clock-msecs # 0.875 CPUs ( +- 4.316% )
    > 0 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.000% )
    > 0 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.000% )
    > 254 page-faults # 0.229 M/sec ( +- 0.000% )
    > 3461896 cycles # 3121.958 M/sec ( +- 3.508% )
    > 3044445 instructions # 0.879 IPC ( +- 0.134% )
    > 21213 cache-references # 19.130 M/sec ( +- 1.612% )
    > 2610 cache-misses # 2.354 M/sec ( +- 39.640% )
    >
    > 0.001267355 seconds time elapsed ( +- 4.762% )
    >
    > that way even small changes in metrics can be identified as positive
    > effects of a patch, if the improvement is beyond the error
    > percentage that perf reports.
    >
    > For example in the /bin/ls numbers i cited above, the 'instructions'
    > value can be trusted up to 99.8% (with a ~0.13% noise), while say
    > the cache-misses value can not really be trusted, as it has 40% of
    > noise. (Increasing the repeat count will drive down the noise level
    > - at the cost of longer measurement time.)
    >
    > For your patch the improvement is so drastic that this isnt needed -
    > but the error estimations can be quite useful for more borderline
    > improvements. (and they are also useful in finding and proving small
    > performance regressions)

    Thanks for the tip, let me try and use the repeats feature. BTW, nice
    work on the perf counters, I was pleasantly surprised to see a
    wonderful tool in the kernel with a good set of options and detailed
    analysis capabilities.

    --
    Balbir


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-13 10:47    [W:0.024 / U:61.152 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site