This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC] Porting string performance tests into benchtests
- From: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
- To: siddhesh at redhat dot com
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 23:40:42 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Porting string performance tests into benchtests
- References: <20130403101130 dot GE20842 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <20130403 dot 123522 dot 1616212976811705615 dot davem at davemloft dot net> <20130404033719 dot GA14860 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:07:19 +0530
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 12:35:22PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>>
>> I strongly perfer the raw cpu cycle counter read.
>
> Could you elaborate on that? Is it just a personal preference or is
> some aspect of my argument in favour of clock_gettime incorrect or
> irrelevant?
I really want to see on the cpu cycle level whether the changes I make
to the pre-loop and post-loop code make any difference.
And on sparc chips I don't have the issues that can make the cpu cycle
counter inaccurate or less usable as a timing mechanism.