From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964940AbWACVgk (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:36:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964943AbWACVgj (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:36:39 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:15302 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964940AbWACVgi (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:36:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Benchmarks From: Arjan van de Ven To: Sharma Sushant Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060103213244.M41864@webmail.cs.unm.edu> References: <20060103213244.M41864@webmail.cs.unm.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:36:34 +0100 Message-Id: <1136324194.2869.22.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (-2.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.8 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 16:34 -0500, Sharma Sushant wrote: > Hello everyone, > If someone make some modifications to kernel code and want to know how much > overead those modifications has caused, what are the benchmarks that one > should use to calculate the overhead of the added code. > please cc the reply to me. it really depends on what area of the kernel you're changing.. there's no "golden" benchmark that tests the entire kernel and gives one nice answer... there are however a lot of smaller benchmarks that test a portion of the kernel....