Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:01:05 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: lmbench results for 2.4 and 2.5 -- updated results |
| |
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 11:53:44AM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > --- LMbench/src/lat_pagefault.c.org Mon Mar 24 10:40:46 2003 > +++ LMbench/src/lat_pagefault.c Mon Mar 24 10:54:34 2003 > @@ -67,5 +67,5 @@ > n++; > } > use_int(sum); > - fprintf(stderr, "Pagefaults on %s: %d usecs\n", file, usecs/n); > + fprintf(stderr, "Pagefaults on %s: %f usecs\n", file, (1.0 * > usecs) / n); > }
It's been a long time since I've looked at this benchmark, has anyone stared at it and do you believe it measures anything useful? If not, I'll drop it from a future release. If I remember correctly what I was trying to do was to measure the cost of setting up the mapping but I might be crackin smoke. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |