Antoine Pitrou:
> Why not ``time.process_time_ns()``?
I measured the minimum delta between two clock reads, ignoring zeros.
I tested time.process_time(), os.times(), resource.getrusage(), and
their nanosecond variants (with my WIP implementation of the PEP 564).
Linux:
* process_time_ns(): 1 ns
* process_time(): 2 ns
* resource.getrusage(): 1 us
ru_usage structure uses timeval, so it makes sense
* clock(): 1 us
CLOCKS_PER_SECOND = 1,000,000 => res = 1 us
* times_ns().elapsed, times().elapsed: 10 ms
os.sysconf("SC_CLK_TCK") == HZ = 100 => res = 10 ms
* times_ns().user, times().user: 10 ms
os.sysconf("SC_CLK_TCK") == HZ = 100 => res = 10 ms
Windows:
* process_time(), process_time_ns(): 15.6 ms
* os.times().user, os.times_ns().user: 15.6 ms
Note: I didn't test os.wait3() and os.wait4(), but they also use the
ru_usage structure and so probably also have a resolution of 1 us.
It looks like *currently*, only time.process_time() has a resolution
in nanoseconds (smaller than 1 us). I propose to only add
time.process_time_ns(), as you proposed.
We might add nanosecond variant for the other functions once operating
systems will add new functions with better resolution.
Victor
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
