Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:00:12 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [LKP] [lkp] [futex] 65d8fc777f: +25.6% will-it-scale.per_process_ops |
| |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016, Huang, Ying wrote: > > FYI, we noticed 25.6% performance improvement due to commit > > > > 65d8fc777f6d "futex: Remove requirement for lock_page() in get_futex_key()" > > > > in the will-it-scale.per_process_ops test. > > > > will-it-scale.per_process_ops tests the futex operations for process shared > > futexes (Or whatever that test really does). > > There is a futex sub test case for will-it-scale test suite. But I got your > point, we need some description for the test case. If email is not too > limited for the full description, we will put it in some web site and > include short description and link to the full description in email.
Ok. Just make sure the short description gives enough information for the casual reader.
> > The commit has no significant impact on any other test in the test suite. > > Sorry, we have no enough machine power to test all test cases for each > bisect result. So we will have no such information until we find a way > to do that.
Well, then I really have to ask how I should interpret the data here:
5076304 ± 0% +25.6% 6374220 ± 0% will-it-scale.per_process_ops
^^^ That's the reason why you sent the mail in the first place
1194117 ± 0% +14.4% 1366153 ± 1% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops 0.58 ± 0% -2.0% 0.57 ± 0% will-it-scale.scalability 6820 ± 0% -19.6% 5483 ± 15% meminfo.AnonHugePages 2652 ± 5% -10.4% 2375 ± 2% vmstat.system.cs 2848 ± 32% +141.2% 6870 ± 65% numa-meminfo.node1.Active(anon) 2832 ± 31% +57.6% 4465 ± 27% numa-meminfo.node1.AnonPages 15018 ± 12% -23.3% 11515 ± 15% numa-meminfo.node2.AnonPages 1214 ± 14% -22.8% 936.75 ± 20% numa-meminfo.node3.PageTables 712.25 ± 32% +141.2% 1718 ± 65% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_active_anon 708.25 ± 31% +57.7% 1116 ± 27% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_anon_pages
How is this related and what should I do about this information?
If it's important then I have to admit, that I fail to understand why.
If it's not important then I have to ask why is this included.
> > So that allows me to reproduce that test more or less with no effort. And > > that's the really important part. > > For reproducing, now we use lkp-tests tool, which includes scripts to > build the test case, run the test, collect various information, compare > the test result, with the job file attached with the report email. That > is not the easiest way, we will continuously improve it.
I know and lkp-tests is a pain to work with. So please look into a way to extract the relevant binaries, so it's simple for developers to reproduce.
> > You can provide nice charts and full comparison tables for all tests on a web > > site for those who are interested in large stats and pretty charts. > > > > Full results: http://wherever.you.store/your/results/test-nr/results > > Before we have a website for detailed information, we will still put > some details into report email.
Ok, but please make them understandable for mere mortals.
Thanks,
tglx | |