Le mercredi 21 octobre 2009 à 12:42 -0500, John Arbash Meinel a écrit : > > You can use time.clock() instead to get <15ms resolution. Changing all > instances of 'time.time' to 'time.clock' gives me this result: [snip] > > --- Latency --- > > Background CPU task: Pi calculation (Python) > > CPU threads=0: 24727 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.) > CPU threads=1: 27930 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.) > CPU threads=2: 31029 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.) > CPU threads=3: 34170 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.) > CPU threads=4: 37292 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.)
Well apparently time.clock() has a per-process time reference, which makes it unusable for this benchmark :-( (the numbers above are obviously incorrect) Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
