linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V10 0/18] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130624131716.GA11948@hawk.usersys.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:17:16 +0200
From:	Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	gleb@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com, jeremy@...p.org, x86@...nel.org,
	konrad.wilk@...cle.com, hpa@...or.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	mtosatti@...hat.com, stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com,
	andi@...stfloor.org, attilio.rao@...rix.com, ouyang@...pitt.edu,
	gregkh@...e.de, agraf@...e.de, chegu_vinod@...com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, avi.kivity@...il.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stephan.diestelhorst@....com,
	riel@...hat.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V10 0/18] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 06:10:14PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> 
> Results:
> =======
> base = 3.10-rc2 kernel
> patched = base + this series
> 
> The test was on 32 core (model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X7560) HT disabled
> with 32 KVM guest vcpu 8GB RAM.

Have you ever tried to get results with HT enabled?

> 
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
>                ebizzy (records/sec) higher is better
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
>     base        stdev        patched    stdev        %improvement
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
> 1x  5574.9000   237.4997    5618.0000    94.0366     0.77311
> 2x  2741.5000   561.3090    3332.0000   102.4738    21.53930
> 3x  2146.2500   216.7718    2302.3333    76.3870     7.27237
> 4x  1663.0000   141.9235    1753.7500    83.5220     5.45701
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+

This looks good. Are your ebizzy results consistent run to run
though?

> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
>               dbench  (Throughput) higher is better
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
>     base        stdev        patched    stdev        %improvement
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
> 1x 14111.5600   754.4525   14645.9900   114.3087     3.78718
> 2x  2481.6270    71.2665    2667.1280    73.8193     7.47498
> 3x  1510.2483    31.8634    1503.8792    36.0777    -0.42173
> 4x  1029.4875    16.9166    1039.7069    43.8840     0.99267
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+

Hmm, I wonder what 2.5x looks like. Also, the 3% improvement with
no overcommit is interesting. What's happening there? It makes
me wonder what < 1x looks like.

thanks,
drew
--
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/