xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: followup on benchmarks of an xfs embedded system (without rt section

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jason Newton <nevion@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: followup on benchmarks of an xfs embedded system (without rt section)
From: Stewart Smith <stewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:06:00 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120730221105.GK2877@dastard>
References: <CAGou9Mhz-ez5nnzVAoRbp-E93NqBjT-wgGyHvrLkC7jEzJBagw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120730221105.GK2877@dastard>
User-agent: Notmuch/0.13.2+60~g7ecf77d (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 03:35:40AM -0700, Jason Newton wrote:
>> I've attached my benchmark program but I use alot of boost c++ with a
>> little internal set of libraries... so you can see what I"m doing but it
>> likely won't compile for you.  I'll also mention that boost is a very low
>> overhead (if any) over all the normal system calls one would use (verified
>> by reading sourcecode in use).
>
> I'd suggest rewriting it so we can compile and run it. If I can
> reproduce the problem, I can at least understand where the latency
> is coming from.

The boost::chrono usage is the weirdest one that'll likely cause
issues. Should be replaced with boost::posix_time instead (it's been
around a lot longer)... otherwise it's just having to install all the
boost headers I think (boost is basically 99.9% implemented in header
files and templates)

-- 
Stewart Smith

Attachment: pgpK57KUM1cGs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>