Re: lmbench results for 2.4 and 2.5 -- updated results

[Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>]

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