From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot0-f200.google.com (mail-ot0-f200.google.com [74.125.82.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FFE56B0005 for ; Wed, 2 May 2018 11:50:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ot0-f200.google.com with SMTP id u29-v6so11249395ote.18 for ; Wed, 02 May 2018 08:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from foss.arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com. [217.140.101.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k132-v6si4146711oif.209.2018.05.02.08.50.52 for ; Wed, 02 May 2018 08:50:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Punit Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/25] Speculative page faults References: <1523975611-15978-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87bmdynnv4.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 16:50:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Laurent Dufour's message of "Wed, 2 May 2018 16:45:19 +0200") Message-ID: <87vac6m4yu.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Laurent Dufour Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz, Matthew Wilcox , benh@kernel.crashing.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , hpa@zytor.com, Will Deacon , Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrea Arcangeli , Alexei Starovoitov , kemi.wang@intel.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com, Daniel Jordan , David Rientjes , Jerome Glisse , Ganesh Mahendran , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com, bsingharora@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Tim Chen , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org Hi Laurent, Thanks for your reply. Laurent Dufour writes: > On 02/05/2018 16:17, Punit Agrawal wrote: >> Hi Laurent, >> >> One query below - >> >> Laurent Dufour writes: >> >> [...] >> >>> >>> 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. [...] >> >> 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 elapsed > > Thanks 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40bjRg0mtSzF2TC for ; Thu, 3 May 2018 01:50:54 +1000 (AEST) From: Punit Agrawal To: Laurent Dufour Cc: , , , , , , , Matthew Wilcox , , , , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , , Will Deacon , Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrea Arcangeli , Alexei Starovoitov , , , Daniel Jordan , David Rientjes , Jerome Glisse , Ganesh Mahendran , , , , , , , , Tim Chen , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/25] Speculative page faults References: <1523975611-15978-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87bmdynnv4.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 16:50:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Laurent Dufour's message of "Wed, 2 May 2018 16:45:19 +0200") Message-ID: <87vac6m4yu.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Laurent, Thanks for your reply. Laurent Dufour writes: > On 02/05/2018 16:17, Punit Agrawal wrote: >> Hi Laurent, >> >> One query below - >> >> Laurent Dufour writes: >> >> [...] >> >>> >>> 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. [...] >> >> 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 elapsed > > Thanks 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