This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] benchtests: Memory walking benchmark for memcpy
- From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at sourceware dot org>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:25:11 +0530
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] benchtests: Memory walking benchmark for memcpy
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1505756414-12857-1-git-send-email-siddhesh@sourceware.org> <be10b3b8-6440-cacb-62e1-6e44559e7fca@redhat.com> <7d713462-4db7-bdb8-c42c-61da43ccbf9f@sourceware.org> <ea9cf4c3-e24f-ceae-2034-9a86368c0345@sourceware.org> <03cbcfa5-28c0-1a15-71fb-1a446d845325@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: siddhesh at sourceware dot org
On Thursday 05 October 2017 03:49 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> As the subsystem maintainer I defer to your choice here. I don't have a
> strong opinion, other than a desire for conformity of measurements to
> avoid confusion. If I could say anything, consider the consumer and make
> sure the data is tagged such that a consumer can determine if it is time
> or throughput.
OK, I'll take the conservative route and stick to measuring time here
instead of rate. If I feel strongly enough about it I'll start a
separate discussion on making all data routines (i.e. string/memory
routines) rate based so that there's no confusion.
Siddhesh