From: Mauricio Lin <mauriciolin@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: hugh@veritas.com, wli@holomorphy.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rrebel@whenu.com,
marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] A new entry for /proc
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:14:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3f250c7105022507146b4794f1@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050224035255.6b5b5412.akpm@osdl.org>
Hi all,
I tested the two smaps entry using time command.
I tested 100.000 cat commands with smaps for each version.
I checked the difference between the two versions and the new one is
faster than old one. So Hugh is correct about the loop performance.
Thanks!!!
Mauricio Lin.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:52:55 -0800, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> Mauricio Lin <mauriciolin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > But can i use jiffies to measure this kind of performance??? AFAIK, if
> > it is more efficient, then it is faster, right? How can I know how
> > fast it is? Any idea?
>
> umm,
>
> time ( for i in $(seq 100); do; cat /proc/nnn/smaps; done > /dev/null )
>
> ?
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-25 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-06 21:11 [PATCH] A new entry for /proc Mauricio Lin
2005-01-07 4:23 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-07 12:30 ` Roger Luethi
2005-01-08 20:20 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-01-08 21:47 ` Alan Cox
2005-01-10 9:21 ` Edjard Souza Mota
2005-01-10 15:23 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-02-22 13:13 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-02-24 8:31 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-02-24 9:09 ` Andrew Morton
2005-02-24 11:43 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-02-24 11:52 ` Andrew Morton
2005-02-25 15:14 ` Mauricio Lin [this message]
2005-02-28 9:43 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-02-28 9:56 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-02-28 20:41 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-03-01 8:08 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-03-01 14:17 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-03-01 15:44 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-03-02 12:20 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-03-02 19:07 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-03-03 7:25 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-03-03 12:48 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-03-03 14:23 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-01-10 14:35 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-01-14 22:46 ` Mauricio Lin
[not found] ` <20050114154209.6b712e55.akpm@osdl.org>
2005-01-17 18:03 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-01-17 19:02 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-01-17 17:30 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2005-01-17 21:27 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-01-17 21:35 ` William Lee Irwin III
2005-01-18 1:07 ` Nick Piggin
2005-01-19 12:59 ` Nick Piggin
2005-01-24 22:14 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-04-29 18:36 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-04-30 1:25 ` Andrew Morton
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-02-24 18:56 Albert Cahalan
2005-03-01 14:32 ` Mauricio Lin
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=3f250c7105022507146b4794f1@mail.gmail.com \
--to=mauriciolin@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=rrebel@whenu.com \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/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