[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anything time stamping things it processes many of will call some sort of
time function pretty often. Could happen frequently with certain classes of
applications.
Right, but if the timestamp granularity is coarse and there's no
blocking call in between it makes no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anything time stamping things it processes many of will call some sort of
time function pretty often. Could happen frequently with certain classes of
applications.
Right, but if the timestamp granularity is coarse and there's no
blocking call in between it makes no
- Original Message -
From: "Florin Malita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Linux Kernel Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: kernel 2.6 speed
> On 7/24/05, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > time() isn't a hot
> &
Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 17:03 -0400, Florin Malita wrote:
the x86 timer interrupt
frequency has increased from 100Hz to 1KHz (it's about to be lowered
to 250Hz)
This is by no means a done deal. So far no one has posted ANY evidence
that dropping HZ to 250 helps (except one
Thanks guys for your help. I should have asked you
this right from the beginning. :)
Ciprian
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Thanks guys for your help. I should have asked you
this right from the beginning. :)
Ciprian
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 17:03 -0400, Florin Malita wrote:
the x86 timer interrupt
frequency has increased from 100Hz to 1KHz (it's about to be lowered
to 250Hz)
This is by no means a done deal. So far no one has posted ANY evidence
that dropping HZ to 250 helps (except one
- Original Message -
From: Florin Malita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: kernel 2.6 speed
On 7/24/05, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
time() isn't a hot
path in the real world.
That's
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:10:15AM -0400, Florin Malita wrote:
> On 7/24/05, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > time() isn't a hot
> > path in the real world.
>
> That's what you would expect but I've straced stuff calling
> gettimeofday() in huge bursts every other second. Obviously
On 7/24/05, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> time() isn't a hot
> path in the real world.
That's what you would expect but I've straced stuff calling
gettimeofday() in huge bursts every other second. Obviously braindead
stuff but so is "the real world" most of the time() ... :)
-
To
On Sul, 2005-07-24 at 12:12 -0700, Ciprian wrote:
> I'm not an OS guru, but I ran a little and very simple
> test. The program bellow, as you can see, measures the
> number of cycles performed in 30 seconds.
No it measures the performance of the "time()" call. Windows has some
funky optimisations
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 17:03 -0400, Florin Malita wrote:
> the x86 timer interrupt
> frequency has increased from 100Hz to 1KHz (it's about to be lowered
> to 250Hz)
This is by no means a done deal. So far no one has posted ANY evidence
that dropping HZ to 250 helps (except one result on a
>I got a question for you. Apparently kernel 2.6 is
>much slower then 2.4 and about 30 times slower then
>the windows one.
>
>I'm not an OS guru, but I ran a little and very simple
>test. The program bellow, as you can see, measures the
>number of cycles performed in 30 seconds.
I suggest that
On 7/24/05, Ciprian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> test /= 10;
> test *= 10;
> test += 10;
> test -= 10;
You're not trying to benchmark the kernel with those arithmetic
operations are you?! That's completely bogus, the kernel is not
involved in any of that.
As it has been already pointed out, the
Ciprian wrote:
Hi guys!
I got a question for you. Apparently kernel 2.6 is
much slower then 2.4 and about 30 times slower then
the windows one.
I'm not an OS guru, but I ran a little and very simple
test. The program bellow, as you can see, measures the
number of cycles performed in 30
> In windows were performed about 300 millions cycles,
> while in Linux about 10 millions. This test was run on
> Fedora 4 and Suse 9.2 as Linux machines, and Windows
> XP Pro with VS .Net 2003 on the MS side. My CPU is a
> P4 @3GHz HT 800MHz bus.
>
> I published my little test on several forums
Hi guys!
I got a question for you. Apparently kernel 2.6 is
much slower then 2.4 and about 30 times slower then
the windows one.
I'm not an OS guru, but I ran a little and very simple
test. The program bellow, as you can see, measures the
number of cycles performed in 30 seconds.
Hi guys!
I got a question for you. Apparently kernel 2.6 is
much slower then 2.4 and about 30 times slower then
the windows one.
I'm not an OS guru, but I ran a little and very simple
test. The program bellow, as you can see, measures the
number of cycles performed in 30 seconds.
In windows were performed about 300 millions cycles,
while in Linux about 10 millions. This test was run on
Fedora 4 and Suse 9.2 as Linux machines, and Windows
XP Pro with VS .Net 2003 on the MS side. My CPU is a
P4 @3GHz HT 800MHz bus.
I published my little test on several forums and I
Ciprian wrote:
Hi guys!
I got a question for you. Apparently kernel 2.6 is
much slower then 2.4 and about 30 times slower then
the windows one.
I'm not an OS guru, but I ran a little and very simple
test. The program bellow, as you can see, measures the
number of cycles performed in 30
On 7/24/05, Ciprian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
test /= 10;
test *= 10;
test += 10;
test -= 10;
You're not trying to benchmark the kernel with those arithmetic
operations are you?! That's completely bogus, the kernel is not
involved in any of that.
As it has been already pointed out, the only
I got a question for you. Apparently kernel 2.6 is
much slower then 2.4 and about 30 times slower then
the windows one.
I'm not an OS guru, but I ran a little and very simple
test. The program bellow, as you can see, measures the
number of cycles performed in 30 seconds.
I suggest that you take
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 17:03 -0400, Florin Malita wrote:
the x86 timer interrupt
frequency has increased from 100Hz to 1KHz (it's about to be lowered
to 250Hz)
This is by no means a done deal. So far no one has posted ANY evidence
that dropping HZ to 250 helps (except one result on a
On Sul, 2005-07-24 at 12:12 -0700, Ciprian wrote:
I'm not an OS guru, but I ran a little and very simple
test. The program bellow, as you can see, measures the
number of cycles performed in 30 seconds.
No it measures the performance of the time() call. Windows has some
funky optimisations that
On 7/24/05, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
time() isn't a hot
path in the real world.
That's what you would expect but I've straced stuff calling
gettimeofday() in huge bursts every other second. Obviously braindead
stuff but so is the real world most of the time() ... :)
-
To unsubscribe
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:10:15AM -0400, Florin Malita wrote:
On 7/24/05, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
time() isn't a hot
path in the real world.
That's what you would expect but I've straced stuff calling
gettimeofday() in huge bursts every other second. Obviously braindead
stuff
26 matches
Mail list logo
