Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:10:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: New timeout capability (was Re: cvs commit:....) Message-ID: <199709221910.NAA02147@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <612.874952557@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <199709221630.KAA01072@rocky.mt.sri.com> <612.874952557@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > In message <199709221630.KAA01072@rocky.mt.sri.com>, Nate Williams writes: > > >Stating that it takes O(n) times to add/remove a callout and calling it > >a win when it takes O(n) time to process a tick isn't a win in my book. > > > >PHK answered by saying that on his laptop, it seemed to be a wash, so > >that's encouraging, but it seems to have the ability to make the system > >slower. (I'd like to see how PHK compared the two approaches.) > > elapsed time for make world, including careful scrutinizing the basic- > block profiling output. > > This is the kind of stuff my new "rover" setup is meant to be able to > measure. I have a standard deviation of less than 1 part in thousand > for real + user time, and less than 1 in 300 for system time, so > very small changes can be measured rather reliably. Can you explain a bit more about your 'rover' setup, and how it's used? Thanks! Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709221910.NAA02147>