On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 2:29 PM Anders Hovmöller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Have you checked how much overhead the two functions have? That seems like an
> obvious way this proposal could go south.
Without patch:
$ ./python -m timeit -s "import os" "os.times()"
500000 loops, best of 5: 546 nsec per loop
With patch:
$ ./python -m timeit -s "import os" "os.times()"
200000 loops, best of 5: 1.23 usec per loop
The patch:
diff --git a/Modules/posixmodule.c b/Modules/posixmodule.c
index 3f76018357..ad91ed702a 100644
--- a/Modules/posixmodule.c
+++ b/Modules/posixmodule.c
@@ -8035,6 +8035,14 @@ os_times_impl(PyObject *module)
#else /* MS_WINDOWS */
{
+#if defined(HAVE_SYS_RESOURCE_H)
+ struct rusage ruself;
+ struct rusage ruchildren;
+ if (getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &ruself) == -1)
+ return posix_error();
+ if (getrusage(RUSAGE_CHILDREN, &ruchildren) == -1)
+ return posix_error();
+#endif
struct tms t;
clock_t c;
@@ -8043,10 +8051,18 @@ os_times_impl(PyObject *module)
if (c == (clock_t) -1)
return posix_error();
return build_times_result(
+
+#if defined(HAVE_SYS_RESOURCE_H)
+ doubletime(ruself.ru_utime),
+ doubletime(ruself.ru_stime),
+ doubletime(ruchildren.ru_utime),
+ doubletime(ruchildren.ru_stime),
+#else
(double)t.tms_utime / ticks_per_second,
(double)t.tms_stime / ticks_per_second,
(double)t.tms_cutime / ticks_per_second,
(double)t.tms_cstime / ticks_per_second,
+#endif
(double)c / ticks_per_second);
}
#endif /* MS_WINDOWS */
--
Giampaolo - http://grodola.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
