From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp03.in.ibm.com (e28smtp03.in.ibm.com [122.248.162.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3DCC1A0D95 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:45:37 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp03.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:15:34 +0530 Received: from d28relay05.in.ibm.com (d28relay05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.62]) by d28dlp01.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942CDE0059 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:16:45 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (d28av05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.67]) by d28relay05.in.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t0L8jUS7655826 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:15:30 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t0L8jTuM015178 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:15:30 +0530 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/mm: Add trace point for tracking hash pte fault In-Reply-To: <1421809627.4900.1.camel@ellerman.id.au> References: <1421753750-17135-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1421809627.4900.1.camel@ellerman.id.au> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:15:09 +0530 Message-ID: <87d268v7xm.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Michael Ellerman writes: > On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 17:05 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> This enables us to understand how many hash fault we are taking >> when running benchmarks. >> >> For ex: >> -bash-4.2# ./perf stat -e powerpc:hash_fault -e page-faults /tmp/ebizzy.ppc64 -S 30 -P -n 1000 >> ... >> >> Performance counter stats for '/tmp/ebizzy.ppc64 -S 30 -P -n 1000': >> >> 1,10,04,075 powerpc:hash_fault >> 1,10,03,429 page-faults >> >> 30.865978991 seconds time elapsed > > Looks good. > > Can you attach some test results that show it's not hurting performance when > it's disabled. > ebizzy with -S 30 -t 1 -P gave 13627 records/s -> Without patch 13546 records/s -> With patch with tracepoint disabled 12408 records/s -> With patch with tracepoint enabled. perf stat gave the below data for the above run. 22,38,284 page-faults 22,38,291 powerpc:hash_fault I also used random_access_bench that Anton wrote, it actually create lots of hash fault. A simple run gives. (random_access_bench -o load -g -i -t 10 16G) 1,888 page-faults 2,64,283 powerpc:hash_fault random_access_bench gave: 1435.979 MB/s -> Without patch 1435.29 MB/s -> With patch with tracepoint disabled 1434.75 MB/s -> With patch with tracepoint enabled. -aneesh