Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:09:21 -0800 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: lmbench results for 2.4 and 2.5 -- updated results |
| |
>> --- 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.
On a slightly related note, I played with lmbench a bit over the weekend, but the results were too unstable to be useful ... they're also too short to profile ;-(
I presume it does 100 iterations of a test (like fork latency?). Or does it just do one? Can I make it do 1,000,000 iterations or something fairly easily ? ;-) I didn't really look closely, just apt-get install lmbench ...
Thanks,
M.
- 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/
| |