Paul Mackerras <pau...@ozlabs.org> writes:
> On pseries, performance is about 2.4% worse without new hcalls, but
> that is less than 1 standard deviation. With new hcalls, performance
> is 0.95% worse, only a third of a standard deviation. I think we need
> to do more measurements to try to get a more accurate picture here.
>
> Were the pseries numbers done on KVM or PowerVM? Could you do a set
> of measurements on the other one too please? (I assume the numbers
> with the new hcall were done on KVM, and can't be done on PowerVM.)
>
I got ebizzy and kernel compile run on powernv and powervm config. You
can find the numbers below. I did 10 iterations and only added stdev and
median below. I do find powernv do better with patch series.
ebizzy run
-----------
PowerNV (ebizzy -m -n 1000 -P -s 512000 -S 100 -t 100):
With patches, 10 iterations results records/sec.
stdev = 37.60
median = 7411.5
Without patch:
stdev = 23.071
median = 7350
PowerVM numbers(./ebizzy -m -n 1000 -P -s 512000 -S 100 -t 30):
With patch (no new hcalls):
stdev = 20.721
median = 6955.5
Without patch
stdev = 35.049
median = 7081
kernel compile:(time -p)
---------------------------
PowerNV:
With patches:
Real
----
stdev = 1.624
median = 61.56
User:
stdev = 61.204
median = 4816.73
Sys:
stdev = 4.367
median = 387.575
Without patches:
Real:
stdev = 1.318
median = 63.635
User:
stdev = 50.531
median = 4820.51
Sys:
stdev = 6.409
median = 389.765
PowerVM numbers:
-------------------
With patches (no new hcalls):
Real:
stdev = 3.016
median = 442.745
User:
stdev = 9.738
median = 5507.87
Sys:
stdev = 0.223
median = 176.455
Witout patches:
Real:
stdev = 0.720
median = 442.445
User:
stdev = 8.621
median = 5501.615
Sys:
stdev = 0.189
median = 173.3
