[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMzpN2hwzCXB52fD_KfK3db5aHkBgXu+zAKSS3+L8pk0mp2r8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:43:04 -0400
From: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] x86: Rewrite switch_to()
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> > Something like this:
>> >
>> > taskset 1 perf stat -a -e '{instructions,cycles}' --repeat 10 perf bench sched pipe
>> >
>> > ... will give a very good idea about the general impact of these changes on
>> > context switch overhead.
>>
>> Before:
>> Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (10 runs):
>>
>> 12,010,932,128 instructions # 1.03 insn per
>> cycle ( +- 0.31% )
>> 11,691,797,513 cycles
>> ( +- 0.76% )
>>
>> 3.487329979 seconds time elapsed
>> ( +- 0.78% )
>>
>> After:
>> Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (10 runs):
>>
>> 12,097,706,506 instructions # 1.04 insn per
>> cycle ( +- 0.14% )
>> 11,612,167,742 cycles
>> ( +- 0.81% )
>>
>> 3.451278789 seconds time elapsed
>> ( +- 0.82% )
>>
>> The numbers with or without this patch series are roughly the same.
>> There is noticeable variation in the numbers each time I run it, so
>> I'm not sure how good of a benchmark this is.
>
> Weird, I get an order of magnitude lower noise:
>
> triton:~/tip> taskset 1 perf stat -a -e '{instructions,cycles}' --repeat 10 perf bench sched pipe >/dev/null
>
> Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (10 runs):
>
> 11,503,026,062 instructions # 1.23 insn per cycle ( +- 2.64% )
> 9,377,410,613 cycles ( +- 2.05% )
>
> 1.669425407 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.12% )
>
> But note that I also had '--sync' for perf stat and did a >/dev/null at the end to
> make sure no terminal output and subsequent Xorg activities interfere. Also, full
> screen terminal.
>
> Maybe try 'taskset 4' as well to put the workload on another CPU, if the first CPU
> is busier than the others?
>
> (Any Hyperthreading on your test system?)
It is an AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T, no hyperthreading.
--
Brian Gerst
Powered by blists - more mailing lists