Re: lmbench results for 2.4 and 2.5 -- updated results

["Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>]

>> --- LMbench/src/lat_pagefault.c.org	Mon Mar 24 10:40:46 2003
>> +++ LMbench/src/lat_pagefault.c	Mon Mar 24 10:54:34 2003
>> @@ -67,5 +67,5 @@
>>  		n++;
>>  	}
>>  	use_int(sum);
>> -	fprintf(stderr, "Pagefaults on %s: %d usecs\n", file, usecs/n);
>> +	fprintf(stderr, "Pagefaults on %s: %f usecs\n", file, (1.0 *
>> usecs) / n);
>>  }
> 
> It's been a long time since I've looked at this benchmark, has anyone 
> stared at it and do you believe it measures anything useful?  If not,
> I'll drop it from a future release.  If I remember correctly what I
> was trying to do was to measure the cost of setting up the mapping
> but I might be crackin smoke.

On a slightly related note, I played with lmbench a bit over the weekend,
but the results were too unstable to be useful ... they're also too short
to profile ;-( 

I presume it does 100 iterations of a test (like fork latency?). Or does 
it just do one? Can I make it do 1,000,000 iterations or something
fairly easily ? ;-) I didn't really look closely, just apt-get install
lmbench ... 

Thanks,

M.