[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160327152005.GU6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 17:20:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>, pi3orama@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] perf core: Prepare writing into ring buffer from end
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:14:36PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
> >>I think you enabled some unusual config options?
x86_64-defconfig
> >You must enabled CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING. Now I get similar result:
It has that indeed.
> After enabling CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING:
>
> Test its performance by calling 'close(-1)' for 3000000 times and
> use 'perf record -o /dev/null -e raw_syscalls:* test-ring-buffer' to
> capture system calls:
>
> MEAN STDVAR
> BASE 800077.1 23448.13
> RAWPERF.PRE 2465858.0 603473.70
> RAWPERF.POST 2471925.0 609437.60
>
> Considering the high stdvar, after applying this patch the performance
> is not change.
Why is your variance so immense? And doesn't that render the
measurements pointless?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists