From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Oct 20 13:22:36 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF161065679
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:22:36 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rnoland@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from gizmo.2hip.net (gizmo.2hip.net [64.74.207.195])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C1E8FC16
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:22:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (adsl-154-198-93.ard.bellsouth.net
	[72.154.198.93]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by gizmo.2hip.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9KDMWb4071870
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:22:33 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from rnoland@FreeBSD.org)
From: Robert Noland <rnoland@FreeBSD.org>
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <hbkb79$7l2$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <20091020122432.GA50817@ravenloft.kiev.ua>
	<hbkb79$7l2$1@ger.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: FreeBSD
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:22:26 -0500
Message-Id: <1256044946.2386.28.camel@balrog.2hip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_PBL,
	RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL, RDNS_DYNAMIC, SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.2.5
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on gizmo.2hip.net
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Make process title - % complete
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:22:36 -0000

On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 14:42 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Alex Kozlov wrote:
> 
> > Of course ps or top output much more convenient, but if setproctitle so
> > expencive and will be called so often, then SIGINFO may be good
> > compromise. 
> 
> Regarding speed of setproctitle(), here are some microbenchmark results 
> from the attached test source:
> 
> getpid: 3661124.75 iterations/s
> setproctitle: 591357.56 iterations/s
> 
> Meaning, setprocitle() is around 6 times more expensive than getpid(), 
> meaning it can only be pulled off nearly 600,000 calls/s on a 2.3 GHz 
> Core 2 CPU.
> 
> I really want to be enlightened about how it could affect wallclock time 
> in make(1).

What is the relative difference in buildworld time with and without?

robert.
 
> ----
> 
> #include <sys/time.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> 
> #define NITER 1e7
> 
> double now() {
> 	struct timeval tp;
> 	gettimeofday(&tp, NULL);
> 	return tp.tv_sec + (double)tp.tv_usec / 1e6f;
> }
> 
> int main() {
> 	double t1, t2, t3;
> 	int i;
> 
> 	t1 = now();
> 	for (i = 0; i < NITER; i++)
> 		getpid();
> 	t2 = now() - t1;
> 
> 	printf("getpid: %0.2f iterations/s\n", (float)(NITER/t2));
> 
> 	t1 = now();
> 	for (i = 0; i < NITER; i++)
> 		setproctitle("t%d", i);
> 	t3 = now() - t1;
> 
> 	printf("setproctitle: %0.2f iterations/s\n", (float)(NITER/t3));
> }
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
-- 
Robert Noland <rnoland@FreeBSD.org>
FreeBSD