lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
    On 05/07/2012 05:36 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > On 05/07/2012 01:58 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
    >> On 05/07/2012 02:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
    >>> On 05/07/2012 11:29 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >> (Less is better. Below is time elapsed in sec for x86_64_defconfig
    >> (3+3 runs)).
    >>
    >> BASE BASE+patch %improvement
    >> mean (sd) mean (sd)
    >> case 1x: 66.0566 (74.0304) 61.3233 (68.8299) 7.16552
    >> case 2x: 1253.2 (1795.74) 131.606 (137.358) 89.4984
    >> case 3x: 3431.04 (5297.26) 134.964 (149.861) 96.0664
    >>
    >
    > You're calculating the improvement incorrectly. In the last case, it's
    > not 96%, rather it's 2400% (25x). Similarly the second case is about
    > 900% faster.
    >

    speedup calculation is clear.

    I think confusion for me was more because of the types of benchmarks.

    I always did

    |(patch - base)| * 100 / base


    So, for
    (1) lesser is better sort of benchmarks,
    improvement calculation would be like

    |(patched - base)| * 100/ patched
    e.g for kernbench,

    suppose base = 150 sec
    patched = 100 sec
    improvement = 50 % ( = 33% degradation of base)


    (2) for higher is better sort of benchmarks improvement calculation
    would be like

    |(patched - base)| * 100 / base

    for e.g say for pgbench/ ebizzy...

    base = 100 tps (transactions per sec)
    patched = 150 tps

    improvement = 50 % of pathched kernel ( OR 33 % degradation of base )


    Is this is what generally done? just wanted to be on same page before
    publishing benchmark results, other than kernbench.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-05-13 20:41    [W:0.027 / U:248.156 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site