From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>,
Clark Williams <clark@redhat.com>,
Andrew Theurer <habanero@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: The removal of idle_balance()
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:45:38 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130215074538.GA25845@lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1360908819.23152.97.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Hello, Steven.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 01:13:39AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Performance counter stats for '/work/c/hackbench 500' (100 runs):
>
> 199820.045583 task-clock # 8.016 CPUs utilized ( +- 5.29% ) [100.00%]
> 3,594,264 context-switches # 0.018 M/sec ( +- 5.94% ) [100.00%]
> 352,240 cpu-migrations # 0.002 M/sec ( +- 3.31% ) [100.00%]
> 1,006,732 page-faults # 0.005 M/sec ( +- 0.56% )
> 293,801,912,874 cycles # 1.470 GHz ( +- 4.20% ) [100.00%]
> 261,808,125,109 stalled-cycles-frontend # 89.11% frontend cycles idle ( +- 4.38% ) [100.00%]
> <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend
> 135,521,344,089 instructions # 0.46 insns per cycle
> # 1.93 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 4.37% ) [100.00%]
> 26,198,116,586 branches # 131.109 M/sec ( +- 4.59% ) [100.00%]
> 115,326,812 branch-misses # 0.44% of all branches ( +- 4.12% )
>
> 24.929136087 seconds time elapsed ( +- 5.31% )
>
> Performance counter stats for '/work/c/hackbench 500' (100 runs):
>
> 98258.962617 task-clock # 7.998 CPUs utilized ( +- 12.12% ) [100.00%]
> 2,572,651 context-switches # 0.026 M/sec ( +- 9.35% ) [100.00%]
> 224,004 cpu-migrations # 0.002 M/sec ( +- 5.01% ) [100.00%]
> 913,813 page-faults # 0.009 M/sec ( +- 0.71% )
> 215,927,081,108 cycles # 2.198 GHz ( +- 5.48% ) [100.00%]
> 189,246,626,321 stalled-cycles-frontend # 87.64% frontend cycles idle ( +- 6.07% ) [100.00%]
> <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend
> 102,965,954,824 instructions # 0.48 insns per cycle
> # 1.84 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 5.40% ) [100.00%]
> 19,280,914,558 branches # 196.226 M/sec ( +- 5.89% ) [100.00%]
> 87,284,617 branch-misses # 0.45% of all branches ( +- 5.06% )
>
> 12.285025160 seconds time elapsed ( +- 12.14% )
IMHO, cycles is somewhat strange.
Why one is 1.470 GHz, other is 2.198 GHz?
In my quick test, I get below result.
- Before Patch
Permance counter stats for 'perf bench sched messaging -g 300' (10 runs):
40847.488740 task-clock # 3.232 CPUs utilized ( +- 1.24% )
511,070 context-switches # 0.013 M/sec ( +- 7.28% )
117,882 cpu-migrations # 0.003 M/sec ( +- 5.14% )
1,360,501 page-faults # 0.033 M/sec ( +- 0.12% )
118,534,394,180 cycles # 2.902 GHz ( +- 1.23% ) [50.70%]
<not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend
<not supported> stalled-cycles-backend
46,217,340,271 instructions # 0.39 insns per cycle ( +- 0.56% ) [76.93%]
8,592,447,548 branches # 210.354 M/sec ( +- 0.75% ) [75.50%]
273,367,481 branch-misses # 3.18% of all branches ( +- 0.26% ) [75.49%]
12.639049245 seconds time elapsed ( +- 2.29% )
- After Patch
Performance counter stats for 'perf bench sched messaging -g 300' (10 runs):
42053.008632 task-clock # 2.932 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.91% )
672,759 context-switches # 0.016 M/sec ( +- 2.76% )
83,374 cpu-migrations # 0.002 M/sec ( +- 4.46% )
1,362,900 page-faults # 0.032 M/sec ( +- 0.20% )
121,457,601,848 cycles # 2.888 GHz ( +- 0.93% ) [50.75%]
<not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend
<not supported> stalled-cycles-backend
47,854,828,552 instructions # 0.39 insns per cycle ( +- 0.36% ) [77.09%]
8,981,553,714 branches # 213.577 M/sec ( +- 0.42% ) [75.41%]
274,229,438 branch-misses # 3.05% of all branches ( +- 0.20% ) [75.44%]
14.340330678 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.79% )
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-15 7:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-15 6:13 Steven Rostedt
2013-02-15 7:26 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-15 12:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-15 12:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-15 12:32 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-16 16:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-02-17 6:26 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-17 7:14 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-17 21:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-02-18 3:42 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-18 15:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-02-18 17:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-15 7:45 ` Joonsoo Kim [this message]
2013-02-15 15:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-02-17 6:26 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-18 8:13 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-02-18 15:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-02-19 4:13 ` Rakib Mullick
2013-02-19 7:29 ` Michael Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130215074538.GA25845@lge.com \
--to=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=acme@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clark@redhat.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=habanero@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome