[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47095967.8060608@gelato.unsw.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:10:47 +1000
From: Joshua Root <jmr@...ato.unsw.edu.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
btrace <linux-btrace@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large
IO load on large-ish system
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> actually, the pure marker overhead seems to be a regression:
>
> Kernel Options Min val Avg val Max val Std Dev
>> - markers - bt cfg 15.349127 16.169459 16.372980 0.184417
>> + markers - bt cfg 15.280382 16.202398 16.409257 0.191861
>
> why isnt the marker near zero-cost as it should be? (as long as they are
> enabled but are not in actual use) 2% increase is _ALOT_.
The increase in the mean is actually 0.033, or 0.2%.
> So there's something wrong going on - either markers have unacceptably
> high cost, or the measurement is not valid.
The third option is that the measurement just needs to be done more
times. The standard error in the mean for the + markers case is
0.191861 / sqrt(10) = 0.061, which is twice the size of the difference
being measured.
--
Joshua Root, jmr AT gelato.unsw.edu.au
http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists