lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: lmbench results for 2.4 and 2.5 -- updated results
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 11:53:44AM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> --- 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.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.389 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site