>> --- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 22:00:17 EST