Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262714AbVBYPPA (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:15:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262716AbVBYPO6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:14:58 -0500 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.192]:58869 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262714AbVBYPOi (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:14:38 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=rdva0SmgymppFhSNwYI4iDRY54lnDGFXRsjnaIdHaHdKek2aPF0vN3ZjPB/D1menZmkCbJrVIRTMGw265/Nr8J5Uy2IaZbcm8UGdl8cdkexmf7QqHw9KqLJ57XOA8F8G8jx2LqGkk2gXdrIGnAf3J3wY9Mwcw3fzyo7mLc5srNk= Message-ID: <3f250c7105022507146b4794f1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:14:36 -0400 From: Mauricio Lin Reply-To: Mauricio Lin To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] A new entry for /proc Cc: hugh@veritas.com, wli@holomorphy.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rrebel@whenu.com, marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au In-Reply-To: <20050224035255.6b5b5412.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20050106202339.4f9ba479.akpm@osdl.org> <3f250c710502220513179b606a@mail.gmail.com> <3f250c71050224003110e74704@mail.gmail.com> <20050224010947.774628f3.akpm@osdl.org> <3f250c710502240343563c5cb0@mail.gmail.com> <20050224035255.6b5b5412.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 920 Lines: 31 Hi all, I tested the two smaps entry using time command. I tested 100.000 cat commands with smaps for each version. I checked the difference between the two versions and the new one is faster than old one. So Hugh is correct about the loop performance. Thanks!!! Mauricio Lin. On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:52:55 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Mauricio Lin wrote: > > > > But can i use jiffies to measure this kind of performance??? AFAIK, if > > it is more efficient, then it is faster, right? How can I know how > > fast it is? Any idea? > > umm, > > time ( for i in $(seq 100); do; cat /proc/nnn/smaps; done > /dev/null ) > > ? > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/