Hi all, I comitted a mistake. Indeed the old smaps is still faster than new one.
Take a look: Old smaps real 19.52 user 2.15 sys 17.27 New smaps real 25.93 user 3.19 sys 22.31 Any comments???? BR, Mauricio Lin. On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:14:36 -0400, Mauricio Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I tested the two smaps entry using time command. > > I tested 100.000 cat commands with smaps for each version. > > I checked the difference between the two versions and the new one is > faster than old one. So Hugh is correct about the loop performance. > > Thanks!!! > > Mauricio Lin. > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:52:55 -0800, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mauricio Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > But can i use jiffies to measure this kind of performance??? AFAIK, if > > > it is more efficient, then it is faster, right? How can I know how > > > fast it is? Any idea? > > > > umm, > > > > time ( for i in $(seq 100); do; cat /proc/nnn/smaps; done > /dev/null ) > > > > ? > > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/