[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r2t3wx24.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 22:33:55 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Clement Courbet <courbet@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib: test module for find_*_bit() functions
Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com> writes:
> find_bit functions are widely used in the kernel, including hot paths.
> This module tests performance of that functions in 2 typical scenarios:
> randomly filled bitmap with relatively equal distribution of set and
> cleared bits, and sparse bitmap which has 1 set bit for 500 cleared bits.
>
> On ThunderX machine:
>
> Start testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap
> [1032111.632383] find_next_bit: 240043 cycles, 164062 iterations
> [1032111.647236] find_next_zero_bit: 312848 cycles, 163619 iterations
> [1032111.661585] find_last_bit: 193748 cycles, 164062 iterations
> [1032113.450517] find_first_bit: 177720874 cycles, 164062 iterations
> [1032113.462930]
> Start testing find_bit() with sparse bitmap
> [1032113.477229] find_next_bit: 3633 cycles, 656 iterations
> [1032113.494281] find_next_zero_bit: 620399 cycles, 327025 iterations
> [1032113.506723] find_last_bit: 3038 cycles, 656 iterations
> [1032113.524485] find_first_bit: 691407 cycles, 656 iterations
Have you thought about timing it rather than using get_cycles()?
get_cycles() has the downside that it can't be compared across different
architectures or even platforms within an architecture.
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists