public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Henrik Holst <henrik.holst@ecovision.se>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cipicip@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: kernel 2.6 speed
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:31:19 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <42F0E347.2000406@ecovision.se> (raw)

>> 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.

I know that this benchmark is totally flawed, but I couldn't refuse to 
run it on my own and
to my surprise my numbers where the reverse! Running 2.6.12 gave my 
roughly 73 million
"cycles" while WinXP only gave me 28 million "cycles".

This result made me further test the difference in time() in Linux and 
WinXP and on my hw
(Compaq Evo N800c Laptop) it turns out that the time() call takes 
roughly 0.4 us in Linux vs
1.0 us in WinXP.

Using the GetSystemTime() functions in WinXP yielded the same values as 
time() did in Linux,
so it seams like that atleast on my hw that the time() and 
gettimeofday() functions are as fast
or faster than in WinXP. The question is of course why my results differ 
so much from Ciprians.

/Henrik H

             reply	other threads:[~2005-08-03 15:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-08-03 15:31 Henrik Holst [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-07-24 19:12 kernel 2.6 speed Ciprian
2005-07-24 19:41 ` Brice Goglin
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

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=42F0E347.2000406@ecovision.se \
    --to=henrik.holst@ecovision.se \
    --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