Re: [PATCH] A new entry for /proc
From: Mauricio Lin
Date: Mon Feb 28 2005 - 04:58:33 EST
Just some explanation about the mistake.
I have put cat /proc/pid/status instead of /proc/pid/smaps.
So I was testing the /proc/pid/status and not the /proc/pid/smaps.
Now I am testing with /proc/pid/smaps and the values are showing that
the old one is faster than the new one. So I will keep using the old
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:43:05 -0400, Mauricio Lin <mauriciolin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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????
> Mauricio Lin.
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:14:36 -0400, Mauricio Lin <mauriciolin@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Mauricio Lin <mauriciolin@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/