Em Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 09:28:18AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu: > > * Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Before: > > > > $ perf stat ls > > a.patch > > > > Performance counter stats for 'ls': > > > > 0.822067 task-clock (msec) # 0.873 CPUs utilized (82.26%) > > 0 context-switches # 0.000 K/sec (82.26%) > > 0 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec (82.26%) > > 125 page-faults # 0.152 M/sec (82.26%) > > 2,516,127 cycles # 3.061 GHz (82.84%) > > <not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend > > <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend > > 2,430,467 instructions # 0.97 insn per cycle (82.84%) > > 486,235 branches # 591.479 M/sec (82.84%) > > 18,389 branch-misses # 3.78% of all branches (82.84%) > > > > 0.000941536 seconds time elapsed > > $ > > > > After: > > > > $ perf stat ls > > a.patch > > > > Performance counter stats for 'ls': > > > > 0.824919 task-clock (msec) # 0.893 CPUs utilized (85.47%) > > 0 context-switches # 0.000 K/sec (85.47%) > > 0 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec (85.47%) > > 124 page-faults # 0.150 M/sec (85.47%) > > 2521790 cycles # 3.057 GHz (86.15%) > > 2364913 instructions # 0.94 insn per cycle (86.15%) > > 471970 branches # 572.141 M/sec (86.15%) > > 16935 branch-misses # 3.59% of all branches (86.15%) > > > > 0.000923397 seconds time elapsed > > $ > > Btw., the output format regression is visible in this changelog already...
Right, uf, should've pick this up at this point :-\ Will go back and fix it up, so that we don't introduce a regression. - Arnaldo
