On 02/01/18 21:59, Chintan Pandya wrote:
> On 2/2/2018 12:40 AM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 02/01/18 02:31, Chintan Pandya wrote:
>>>>> Anyways, will fix this locally and share test results.
>>>> Thanks, I look forward to the results.
>>> Set up for this time was slightly different. So, taken all the numbers 
>>> again.
>>> Boot to shell time (in ms): Experiment 2
>>> [1] Base            : 14.843805 14.784842 14.842338
>>> [2] 64 sized fixed cache    : 14.189292 14.200003 14.266711
>>> [3] Dynamic freeable cache    : 14.112412 14.064772 14.036052
>>> So, [3] (this patch) looks to be improving 750ms (on avg from base build).
>> Is this with the many debug options enabled?  If so, can you repeat with
>> a normal configuration?
> Could you share me the point of doing this experiment in perf mode ?

You had mentioned earlier in another thread:

   My recent results were taken on debug_defconfig which has many performance
   slowing code. So, gap between base-build and w/ the test patches would be
   more than the actual production build.

If you measure a large performance gain with a debug configuration, that
may not represent the actual gain you will get with a production
configuration, as you noted.

My question was trying to determine whether the numbers reported above
are for a debug configuration or a production configuration.  And if
not a production configuration, I was requesting the numbers for a
production configuration.  If the production configuration does not
show a significant boot time reduction from the patch then there is
less justification for adding complexity to the existing code.  I
prefer to use simpler data structures and algorithms __if__ extra
complexity does not provide any advantage.  The balance between
complexity and benefits is a core software engineering issue.

> I don't have a set up for taking these numbers in perf mode. For
> that, I need to ask some other team and round trip follow ups. In my
> set up, I rely on serial console logging which gets disabled in perf
> mode.
>> Thanks,
>> Frank
> Chintan

Reply via email to