On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 14:15 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> 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
OK. So that's about -0.6%. Are we happy with that? I'm not sure. Can you do a few more runs and see if that's a stable result. > random_access_bench gave: > 1435.979 MB/s -> Without patch > 1435.29 MB/s -> With patch with tracepoint disabled That's more like -0.05% which is in the noise. cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
