From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: daniel.baluta@gmail.com (Daniel Baluta)
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:15:56 +0200
Subject: syscalls performance
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTina4Yrukqti5oeA7Yt-qcRph2Qr9Q99GkuHz=oh@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimZac++X4jUsz2-bTTtEJwOR45NHAQ=GR3xCVnG@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTiniirL=jN=yOmsev6MF3a1mpwGUkm-_Qu7zh6AR@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTina4Yrukqti5oeA7Yt-qcRph2Qr9Q99GkuHz=oh@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=S0just=K_+_OJspgceX2T7-xtiRos4AQU6xA+@mail.gmail.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Mauro Romano Trajber <trajber@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Enrico and Daniel, you're right. glibc was caching getpid(); but this
> is not the root cause of this behavior.
> Going further, I decide to use call getpid without glibc, using
> ?syscall(SYS_getpid) to test this behavior and it?happened again.
> Calling it once, the test consumes about 7k CPU cycles and 10 calls consumes
> about 10k CPU cycles.
> Any ideas ?

Can you post a pointer to your code and information about how you got
this numbers?

thanks,
Daniel.