Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261486AbVB1JnM (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2005 04:43:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261570AbVB1JnM (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2005 04:43:12 -0500 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.207]:46428 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261486AbVB1JnG (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2005 04:43:06 -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=fhYxBMLTPjtvZBKxHMndRuxHY7lpeITmBxpAeFYgZDRwExSjfZtX2mS4Bpk895VqFnzo3BrS+pPQZ/Iuv8fu0qS9iWrsn1ES6i9/D5f4Qse93J6302QKrUcgoGPKDfDHx8FiBTWp3KplDuegCk9VRT4nk8ne2ntqjlJVMAasLAE= Message-ID: <3f250c71050228014355797bd8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:43:05 -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: <3f250c7105022507146b4794f1@mail.gmail.com> 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> <3f250c7105022507146b4794f1@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1270 Lines: 55 Hi all, I comitted a mistake. Indeed the old smaps is still faster than new one. Take a look: Old smaps real 19.52 user 2.15 sys 17.27 New smaps real 25.93 user 3.19 sys 22.31 Any comments???? BR, Mauricio Lin. On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:14:36 -0400, Mauricio Lin wrote: > 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/