From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: trajber@gmail.com (Mauro Romano Trajber)
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:30:32 -0300
Subject: syscalls performance
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=S0just=K_+_OJspgceX2T7-xtiRos4AQU6xA+@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimZac++X4jUsz2-bTTtEJwOR45NHAQ=GR3xCVnG@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTiniirL=jN=yOmsev6MF3a1mpwGUkm-_Qu7zh6AR@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTina4Yrukqti5oeA7Yt-qcRph2Qr9Q99GkuHz=oh@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=S0just=K_+_OJspgceX2T7-xtiRos4AQU6xA+@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimdHuw7SDuLCbsLHcLvVhv9XSNWwyFOOzzdfX9v@mail.gmail.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

Sure, the code is attached.


On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20110225/f273b11b/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: syscallperf.c
Type: text/x-csrc
Size: 732 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20110225/f273b11b/attachment.bin