From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754774Ab1FEAbX (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Jun 2011 20:31:23 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:42997 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753950Ab1FEAbW (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Jun 2011 20:31:22 -0400 Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 02:31:18 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: George Spelvin Cc: andi@firstfloor.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: How to measure enable_kernel_fpu overhead? Message-ID: <20110605003118.GP27166@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20110605002323.16365.qmail@science.horizon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110605002323.16365.qmail@science.horizon.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 08:23:23PM -0400, George Spelvin wrote: > > This seems to clever for its own good. Even if you come up with some > > number on one CPU it could be completely different on another. > > I would suggest KISS. > > I don't understand. Do you mean different CPUs of the same SMP system? > That would be really bad... Different CPU models. This years CPUs does this and next years that. > on my systems, it would be easy. But that's so obviously not useful > that I didn't bother to mention it. AFAIK you cannot merge anyways as anonymous, so it's moot. -Andi