On Thu 18 Aug 2005 at 01:54AM, Phil Harman wrote:
> Dan,
>
> This is related to the undersized batch issue I mentioned in an earlier
> thread. From your data we can see that the batch (sample) size is 1.
> This is broken. It means that alternate batches will use PROT_NONE and
> PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE. I suspect one of these is cheap, and the other
> is not ... at least this would explain why you get two distinct timings
> with 50% of the samples in each.
>
> This is another instance of a change in libMicro exposing some
> interesting behaviour (which seems to deserve further investigation).
> But it also points to more work needing doing on the new duration
> control code in 0.3.0.
Ok. Thanks. Is it reasonable to consider any 0.3.0 results valid in
this case?
Is there a patch I can apply?
-dp
--
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - blogs.sun.com/dp
_______________________________________________
perf-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
