On 10/28/05, Chuck Swiger <cswiger_at_mac.com> wrote: > Yuriy N. Shkandybin wrote: > >>> Check gettimeofday syscall, it follows every I/O syscall, I think > >>> our gettimeofday is tooooooo expensive, if we can directly get time from > >>> memory, the performance will be improved further. > > > > It's true: > > run next on same PC -- freebsd and linux and compare > [ ...snippet of timing code deleted, see attachment instead... :-) ] > > FreeBSD 4.11-STABLE i386 > null function: 0.01069 > getpid(): 0.51729 > time(): 3.51727 > gettimeofday(): 3.48715 > > FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE i386 > null function: 0.01278 > getpid(): 0.51329 > time(): 2.54771 > gettimeofday(): 2.54982 > > Linux 2.6.5 i686 > null function: 0.01858 > getpid(): 0.01979 > time(): 0.44811 > gettimeofday(): 0.55776 > > Darwin 8.2.0 Power Macintosh > null function: 0.01889 > getpid(): 0.03590 > time(): 0.20913 > gettimeofday(): 0.17278 > > SunOS 5.8 sun4u > null function: 0.05051 > getpid(): 1.29846 > time(): 1.26596 > gettimeofday(): 0.29507 > > [ These are representative results (in seconds); running the test three times > per host shows the null function time value is stable to two digits, or three > on some hosts; the other values seem to vary by less than 10%. ] > > The Intel boxes are all Intel P3, between 700MHz and 1Ghz, the Sun is a > dual-proc E450 _at_ 450MHz, and the other is a Mac Mini _at_ 1.3Ghz, I think. > > Real numbers are are well and good, but I don't want to start yet another > thread about microbenchmarks or statistics. Dual CPU Pentium II 300 MHz running FreeBSD 6.0-RC-1, almost GENERIC kernel: null function: 0.00686 getpid(): 1.72151 time(): 4.57979 gettimeofday(): 4.45133 Same machine under Gentoo Linux (kernel 2.6.10): null function: 0.00678 getpid(): 0.04737 time(): 1.09754 gettimeofday(): 1.36030Received on Fri Oct 28 2005 - 06:14:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:46 UTC