* Jie Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> and then you use this in the measurement loop:
>>
>> for (k=0; k<=OUTERREPS; k++){
>> start = getclock();
>> for (j=0; j<innerreps; j++){
>> #ifdef _QMT_PUBLIC
>> delay((void *)0, 0);
>> #else
>> delay(0, 0, 0, (void *)0);
>> #endif
>> }
>> times[k] = (getclock() - start) * 1.0e6 / (double) innerreps;
>> }
>>
>> the problem is, this does not take the overhead of gettimeofday into
>> account - which overhead can easily reach 10 usecs (the observed
>> regression). Could you try to eliminate the gettimeofday overhead from
>> your measurement?
>>
>> gettimeofday overhead is something that might have changed from .21 to .22
>> on your box.
>>
>> Ingo
>
> Hi, Ingo:
>
> In my pthread_sync code, I first call refer () subroutine which
> actually establishes the elapsed time (reference time) for
> non-synchronized delay() using the gettimeofday. Then each
> synchronization overhead value is obtained by subtracting the
> reference time from the elapsed time with introduced synchronization.
> The effect of gettimeofday() should be minimal if the time difference
> (overhead value) is the interest here. Unless the gettimeofday behaves
> differently in the case of running 8 threads .vs. running 2 threads.
>
> I will try to replace gettimeofday with a lightweight timer call in my
> test code. Thank you very much.
gettimeofday overhead is around 10 usecs here:
2740 1197359374.873214 gettimeofday({1197359374, 873225}, NULL) = 0 <0.000010>
2740 1197359374.970592 gettimeofday({1197359374, 970608}, NULL) = 0 <0.000010>
and that's the only thing that is going on when computing the reference
time - and i see a similar syscall pattern in the PARALLEL and BARRIER
calculations as well (with no real scheduling going on).
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]