Re: [PATCH v10 00/25] Speculative page faults
From: Punit Agrawal <hidden>
Date: 2018-05-02 15:50:53
Also in:
linux-mm
Hi Laurent, Thanks for your reply. Laurent Dufour [off-list ref] writes:
On 02/05/2018 16:17, Punit Agrawal wrote:quoted
Hi Laurent, One query below - Laurent Dufour [off-list ref] writes: [...]quoted
Ebizzy: ------- 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 repeated the test 100 times and measure the average result. The number is the record processes per second, the higher is the best. BASE SPF delta 16 CPUs x86 VM 12405.52 91104.52 634.39% 80 CPUs P8 node 37880.01 76201.05 101.16%How do you measure the number of records processed? Is there a specific version of ebizzy that reports this? I couldn't find a way to get this information with the ebizzy that's included in ltp.I'm using the original one : http://ebizzy.sourceforge.net/
Turns out I missed the records processed in the verbose output enabled by "-vvv". Sorry for the noise. [...]
quoted
A trial run showed increased fault handling when SPF is enabled on an 8-core ARM64 system running 4.17-rc3. I am using a port of your x86 patch to enable spf on arm64. SPF --- Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -vvvmTRp': 1,322,736 faults 1,299,241 software/config=11/ 10.005348034 seconds time elapsed No SPF ----- Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -vvvmTRp': 708,916 faults 0 software/config=11/ 10.005807432 seconds time elapsedThanks for sharing these good numbers !
A quick run showed 71041 (no-spf) vs 122306 (spf) records/s (~72% improvement). I'd like to do some runs on a slightly larger system (if I can get my hands on one) to see how the patches behave. I'll also have a closer look at your series - the previous comments were just somethings I observed as part of trying the functionality on arm64. Thanks, Punit