This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Benchmark for sem_timedwait v1.1


On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 10:38:16AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:26:56PM +0100, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > There are no sensible inputs.
> 
> There are, one for each case, i.e. contended and uncontended.  I'll
> write one up if you can't think of it.
>
Its artificial, you could add always add additional parameter, or for
general benchmark take a string as argument, then call system on it and
require that string be something like "echo 'code' > test.c; gcc test.c; ./a.out"

 
> > There may be different usage patterns to measure which may involve
> > spawning threads which is out of bench-skeleton scope.
> 
> This particular benchmark you posted does not spawn threads; it only
> calls a set of functions.  I agree that in most cases (not necessarily
> all though) that involve spawning threads and measuring events across
> threads, bench-skeleton would be a bad fit.
> 
As that would eventually happens and even now there is notrivial code
for setup there is no point in trying to fix a
round cube to square holes.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]