From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Mosberger Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:06:29 +0000 Subject: Re: Timer updates revision 7 (asm sets predicates/various fixes) Message-Id: <16655.54309.766363.251678@napali.hpl.hp.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >>>>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:33:56 -0700 (PDT), christoph@lameter.com said: Christoph> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, David Mosberger wrote: >> >>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 08:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Christoph Lameter said: >> Christoph> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, David Mosberger wrote: >> >> It occurred to me now why your numbers are higher: I linked my >> >> program statically, whereas yours is probably linked dynamically? >> Christoph> Correct. But why would this have an influence? >> >> I'm just trying to determine why our numbers were different. I dont like >> unexplained differences. Christoph> The different numbers may be due to the different kinds of scaling Christoph> applied to the clock frequency to produce the ITC frequency. No, I think they're precisely because you linked the program dynamically. Try linking it statically. I'm fairly confident you'll get the same/very similar numbers as I did. --david