Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:56:54 -0400 | From | Mauricio Lin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] A new entry for /proc |
| |
Hi,
Just some explanation about the mistake.
I have put cat /proc/pid/status instead of /proc/pid/smaps.
So I was testing the /proc/pid/status and not the /proc/pid/smaps.
Now I am testing with /proc/pid/smaps and the values are showing that the old one is faster than the new one. So I will keep using the old smaps version.
Any suggestion???
BR,
Mauricio Lin.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:43:05 -0400, Mauricio Lin <mauriciolin@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I comitted a mistake. Indeed the old smaps is still faster than new one. > > Take a look: > > Old smaps > real 19.52 > user 2.15 > sys 17.27 > > New smaps > real 25.93 > user 3.19 > sys 22.31 > > Any comments???? > > BR, > > Mauricio Lin. > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:14:36 -0400, Mauricio Lin <mauriciolin@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I tested the two smaps entry using time command. > > > > I tested 100.000 cat commands with smaps for each version. > > > > I checked the difference between the two versions and the new one is > > faster than old one. So Hugh is correct about the loop performance. > > > > Thanks!!! > > > > Mauricio Lin. > > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:52:55 -0800, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > > > Mauricio Lin <mauriciolin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > But can i use jiffies to measure this kind of performance??? AFAIK, if > > > > it is more efficient, then it is faster, right? How can I know how > > > > fast it is? Any idea? > > > > > > umm, > > > > > > time ( for i in $(seq 100); do; cat /proc/nnn/smaps; done > /dev/null ) > > > > > > ? > > > > > > - 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/
| |