From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261380AbVGXXXD (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:23:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261534AbVGXXXC (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:23:02 -0400 Received: from clock-tower.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:4531 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261380AbVGXXXA (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:23:00 -0400 Subject: Re: kernel 2.6 speed From: Alan Cox To: Ciprian Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20050724191211.48495.qmail@web53608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050724191211.48495.qmail@web53608.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:47:49 +0100 Message-Id: <1122248869.10835.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sul, 2005-07-24 at 12:12 -0700, Ciprian wrote: > I'm not an OS guru, but I ran a little and very simple > test. The program bellow, as you can see, measures the > number of cycles performed in 30 seconds. No it measures the performance of the "time()" call. Windows has some funky optimisations that we never bother with because time() isn't a hot path in the real world. Instead try code which does time(&start); while(count++ < LOTS) { Do_stuff } time(&end) and you'll find the numbers on pure CPU work are essentially CPU bound not OS affected at all