Re: numbers don't lie ...
- From: Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:39:18 -0400
In <45099123.4000500@xxxxxxx>, Gary Corcoran <gcorcoran@xxxxxxx> typed:
The confusing thing is that I thought 'real' time should be >= 'user' + 'sys'.
But here 'user' is much greater than 'real' for both machines! The sense I
got from the other messages in this thread is that 'user' time is somewhat
meaningless (i.e. unreliable as a measure) in a multi-CPU and/or hyperthreading
environment. Can you clarify?
'real' is wall clock time. 'user' and 'sys' are cpu time. If your
process gets all of some cpu, then user + sys will be the same as real
time. It's not possible to get more than all of a cpu, so that's a
maximum *per cpu*. If you have multiple cpus, the formula you want is
'real' * ncpu >= 'user' + 'sys'.
I made the comment about freebsd's measure of user time being skewed
by hyperthreading. That's a bit vague. The problem is that waiting
caused by hyperthreading will count against the instruction that's
doing the waiting, which skews them. But as Kris pointed out, there
are other things that have that property, so this is just one more
complication when it comes to figuring the performance of modern CPUs.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@xxxxxxxxx> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: numbers don't lie ...
- From: Gary Corcoran
- Re: numbers don't lie ...
- References:
- numbers don't lie ...
- From: Danny Braniss
- Re: numbers don't lie ...
- From: Dag-Erling Smørgrav
- Re: numbers don't lie ...
- From: Gary Corcoran
- numbers don't lie ...
- Prev by Date: Re: numbers don't lie ...
- Next by Date: Re: numbers don't lie ...
- Previous by thread: Re: numbers don't lie ...
- Next by thread: Re: numbers don't lie ...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|