From: Vadiraj <vadiraj.cs@gmail.com>
To: linux-c-programming <linux-c-programming@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: time system call expensive?
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:27:18 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+NBAy6Lyt-mP05En9kOaUkcUbFoQog1NyHR15bxtyxK4uTc0Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E281189.8010904@gmail.com>
Great!! thanks for the tar.
I'm not sure if we can time() sys call is quite expensive all time.
Simple code I tried
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
int main()
{
int i,k = 0;
time_t t,j;
for(i =0 ; i < 100; i++)
{
usleep(100);
//t = time(NULL);
k++;
//j = time(NULL);
}
}
Time without the time() calls.
time ./time_performance
real 0m2.091s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.001s
output with time calls.
time ./time_performance
real 0m2.007s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.001s
Almost same.
timing k++ is not the righ thing but the point is, time as such is not
so expensive IMHO. I did notice considerable difference when I loop to
a 100000 times without the usleep().
just k++ in the loop.
time ./time_performance
real 0m0.003s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.003s
with time() sys call before and after k++ in the loop.
time ./time_performance
real 0m0.168s
user 0m0.026s
sys 0m0.139s
Cheers,
Vadi
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Akos Marton <makos999@gmail.com> wrote:
> I advice you `man 3 clock`.
> If you want to get much more precision the attached project can help you.
> Does it help?
>
> Regards,
> mAkos
>
>
> Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 06:41:14 +0200, Vadiraj <vadiraj.cs@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm evaluating time consumed by method. I'm using time(NULL) system
>>> call to capture time before and after the call to the function.
>>> Just wanted to know if this has a considerable performance hit? For
>>> all I believe time syscall is quite optimized and should not really be
>>> matter of concern.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if someone have evaluated time(NULL) system over head..
>>>
>>> Assuming the method I'm evaluating is a frequently called method.
>>
>> Why do you worry about it? What do you need the time for? If are
>> really using time(2) it means that the function you're calling run time
>> is counted in seconds. If that's the case, two call to time(2) are
>> by all means negligible.
>>
>> If you need in for benchmark, you would probably do something like:
>>
>> start = time(NULL)
>> for (vary big number)
>> call function you benchmark
>> end = time(NULL)
>>
>> In either case, you should check gettimeofday(2).
>>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-c-programming" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-22 4:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-21 4:41 time system call expensive? Vadiraj
2011-07-21 11:20 ` Michal Nazarewicz
2011-07-21 11:46 ` Akos Marton
2011-07-22 4:57 ` Vadiraj [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+NBAy6Lyt-mP05En9kOaUkcUbFoQog1NyHR15bxtyxK4uTc0Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=vadiraj.cs@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-c-programming@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).