On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:56 AM, John Stultz wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 07:43 +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
>> I was quite impressed with how steady the process clock was under
>> different CPU loads. It doesn't seem to round up or down to a
>> scheduler tick either which is nice.
>
> Hmm. Very
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 07:43 +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
> I was quite impressed with how steady the process clock was under
> different CPU loads. It doesn't seem to round up or down to a
> scheduler tick either which is nice.
Hmm. Very interesting results! Its been a little while since I've looke
> It was a bit random across the different suites. CoreMark
> uses clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, ...) which is a wall clock
> with NTP adjustments. EEMBC uses clock() which is a lower
> resolution wall clock.
So everything was mostly wall clock based. We had not tested
CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Turgis, Frederic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What was the timer used previously for benchmarks ?
It was a bit random across the different suites. CoreMark uses
clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, ...) which is a wall clock with NTP
adjustments. EEMBC uses clock() which is a low
> [mailto:linaro-dev-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hope
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:47 AM
> To: Linaro Dev
> Subject: Choosing the timer to use in benchmarking
>
> Being able to accurately and consistently measure the elapsed
> CPU time is important for to
Being able to accurately and consistently measure the elapsed CPU time
is important for toolchain benchmarking. I ran a few experiments today
and wrote up the results at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Benchmarks/TimerAccuracy
The original is available at:
http://bazaar.launchp
