> oh, you are writing the number-cruncher? Yep. > In general the 'best' > performance metrics for scheduler validation are the ones where you have > immediate feedback: i.e. some ops/sec (or ops per minute) value in some > readily accessible place, or some "milliseconds-per-100,000 ops" type of > metric - whichever lends itself better to the workload at hand. I'll have to see whether that works out. I don't have an easily available ops/sec but I guess I could create something similar. > If you > measure time then the best is to use long long and nanoseconds and the > monotonic clocksource: [snip] Thanks, I will implement that, for Linux anyway. > Plus an absolute metric of "the whole workload took X.Y seconds" is > useful too. That's the easiest to come by and is already available. Best, Michael -- Technosis GmbH, Geschäftsführer: Michael Gerdau, Tobias Dittmar Sitz Hamburg; HRB 89145 Amtsgericht Hamburg Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ Michael Gerdau email: [email protected] GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver
Attachment:
pgpxmbk2UV8jq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [REPORT] cfs-v5 vs sd-0.46
- From: Michael Gerdau <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v5 vs sd-0.46
- From: Michael Gerdau <[email protected]>
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v5 vs sd-0.46
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- [REPORT] cfs-v5 vs sd-0.46
- Prev by Date: [PATCH -mm] utrace: fix double free re __rcu_process_callbacks()
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 10/10] mm: per device dirty threshold
- Previous by thread: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v5 vs sd-0.46
- Next by thread: Re: [ck] [REPORT] cfs-v5 vs sd-0.46
- Index(es):
 |