From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261347AbVGXTro (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:47:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261228AbVGXTrn (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:47:43 -0400 Received: from ip213-185-39-113.laajakaista.mtv3.fi ([213.185.39.113]:703 "HELO dag.newtech.fi") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261182AbVGXTri (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:47:38 -0400 Message-ID: <20050724194737.30199.qmail@dag.newtech.fi> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-0.27 To: Ciprian cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , dag@newtech.fi Subject: Re: kernel 2.6 speed In-Reply-To: Message from Ciprian of "Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:12:11 PDT." <20050724191211.48495.qmail@web53608.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:47:37 +0300 From: Dag Nygren Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > In windows were performed about 300 millions cycles, > while in Linux about 10 millions. This test was run on > Fedora 4 and Suse 9.2 as Linux machines, and Windows > XP Pro with VS .Net 2003 on the MS side. My CPU is a > P4 @3GHz HT 800MHz bus. > > I published my little test on several forums and I > wasn't the only one who got these results. All the > other users using 2.6 kernel obtained similar results > regardless of the CPU they had (Intel or AMD). Looking at the gcc-produced code from youe test program I can see the floating point math beeing optimized away all together as you are not using the result and the rest more or less boils down to the call to time() and a few moves and compares of the time values. In other words it seems like you are testing the efficiency of the time() function... BRGDS Dag