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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans