public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@ens-lyon.org>
To: Ciprian <cipicip@yahoo.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel 2.6 speed
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:41:49 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <42E3EEFD.8090907@ens-lyon.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050724191211.48495.qmail@web53608.mail.yahoo.com>

Le 24.07.2005 21:12, Ciprian a écrit :
> while((testTime-initialTime) < 30)
> {
> time(&testTime);
> test /= 10;
> test *= 10;
> test += 10;
> test -= 10;
> 
> counter ++;
> 
> }

> In windows were performed about 300 millions cycles,
> while in Linux about 10 millions. This test was run on
> Fedora 4 and Suse 9.2 as Linux machines, and Windows
> XP Pro with VS .Net 2003 on the MS side. My CPU is a
> P4 @3GHz HT 800MHz bus.

Hi,

This test gives you the price of the time function on each OS
since the 4 arithmetical operations are shorter to compute
(several cycles against tons of cycles). It appears that the time
function costs about 3 us on Linux against 0.1 us on Windows.
This function is probably very OS-dependant since it depends on
how the kernel handles timing. You can't compare anything as small
as these arithmetical operations like this.  Using rdtsc would be
much better.

Anyway, if you just want to measure the cost of arithmetic
operations, there shouldn't be any difference in the results
between Linux and Windows (with a safe timing method).

Brice

  reply	other threads:[~2005-07-24 19:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-07-24 19:12 kernel 2.6 speed Ciprian
2005-07-24 19:41 ` Brice Goglin [this message]
2005-07-24 19:47 ` Dag Nygren
2005-07-24 20:40 ` Puneet Vyas
2005-07-24 21:03 ` Florin Malita
2005-07-24 22:49   ` Lee Revell
2005-07-25 19:52     ` Bill Davidsen
2005-07-24 21:46 ` Jan Engelhardt
2005-07-24 23:47 ` Alan Cox
2005-07-25  4:10   ` Florin Malita
2005-07-25  5:18     ` Willy Tarreau
2005-07-25  6:47     ` Ciprian
2005-07-26  5:55     ` cutaway
2005-07-26 19:45       ` Florin Malita
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-08-03 15:31 Henrik Holst

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=42E3EEFD.8090907@ens-lyon.org \
    --to=brice.goglin@ens-lyon.org \
    --cc=cipicip@yahoo.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@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