"Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes:
> Michael Ellerman writes:
>
> With patch:
> sys: 0m11.3258
>
> ie, a -0.7% impact
>
> If that impact is high we could possibly put that tracepoint within #ifdef
> CONFIG_DEBUG_VM ?
Since the ebizzy runs results were not stable, I did a micro benchmark
to m
Anton Blanchard writes:
> Hi Aneesh,
>
>> yes. We do use jump label. I also verified that looking at .s
>>
>> #APP
>> # 23 "./arch/powerpc/include/asm/jump_label.h" 1
>> 1:
>> nop
>> .pushsection __jump_table, "aw"
>> .llong 1b, .L201, __tracepoint_hash_fault+8
Hi Aneesh,
> yes. We do use jump label. I also verified that looking at .s
>
> #APP
> # 23 "./arch/powerpc/include/asm/jump_label.h" 1
> 1:
> nop
> .pushsection __jump_table, "aw"
> .llong 1b, .L201, __tracepoint_hash_fault+8 #,
> .popsection
>
> #
Anton Blanchard writes:
> Hi,
>
>> > 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 stabl
Michael Ellerman writes:
> On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 14:15 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
Hi,
> > 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.
Surprisingly large. Is CO
On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 14:15 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> 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
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 10
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
