[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 11:54:07 +1000
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
To: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill@...temov.name,
ak@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...nel.org, dave@...olabs.net,
jack@...e.cz, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
npiggin@...il.com, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 00/11] Speculative page faults
On Mon, 2017-07-03 at 19:32 +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> The test is counting the number of records per second it can manage, the
> higher is the best. I run it like this 'ebizzy -mTRp'. To get consistent
> result I repeat the test 100 times and measure the average result, mean
> deviation and max. I run the test on top of 4.12 on 2 nodes, one with 80
> CPUs, and the other one with 1024 CPUs:
>
> * 80 CPUs Power 8 node:
> Records/s 4.12 4.12-SPF
> Average 38941,62 64235,82
> Mean deviation 620,93 1718,95
> Max 41988 69623
>
> * 1024 CPUs Power 8 node:
> Records/s 4.12 4.12-SPF
> Average 39516,64 80689,27
> Mean deviation 1387,66 1319,98
> Max 43281 90441
>
This seems like a very interesting result
Balbir Singh.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists