Re: Calling 'select' from emacs_gnutls_pull

[claudio.bley@gmail.com (Claudio Bley)]

At Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:36:46 +0200,
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > From: claudio.bley@gmail.com (Claudio Bley)
> > Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:15:36 +0100
> > 
> > Average for with-select key over 3 runs
> > 
> > Version Number:   Windows NT 5.1 (Build 2600)
> > Exit Time:        1:00 am, Monday, January 1 1601
> > Elapsed Time:     0:00:35.208
> > Process Time:     0:00:05.822
> > System Calls:     659366     
> > Context Switches: 138074     
> > Page Faults:      61507      
> > Bytes Read:       80719977   
> > Bytes Written:    320584     
> > Bytes Other:      908395     
> > 
> > 
> > Average for without-select key over 3 runs
> > 
> > Version Number:   Windows NT 5.1 (Build 2600)
> > Exit Time:        1:00 am, Monday, January 1 1601
> > Elapsed Time:     0:00:33.796
> > Process Time:     0:00:06.166
> > System Calls:     857893     
> > Context Switches: 140154     
> > Page Faults:      69061      
> > Bytes Read:       99353998   
> > Bytes Written:    2017152    
> > Bytes Other:      1175082    
> 
> The times look comparable, but I'm confused why byte counts are so
> much different.  Is there a good explanation to that?

Probably an effect of a cold cache or something. Hard to say, I
already rm'ed the timeit database.

So, I quickly re-ran the tests (with one warming round). Here are the
results:

Average for with-select key over 3 runs

Version Number:   Windows NT 5.1 (Build 2600)
Exit Time:        1:00 am, Monday, January 1 1601
Elapsed Time:     0:00:34.875
Process Time:     0:00:05.619
System Calls:     651840     
Context Switches: 154225     
Page Faults:      62383      
Bytes Read:       81394755   
Bytes Written:    340437     
Bytes Other:      1069175    


Average for without-select key over 3 runs

Version Number:   Windows NT 5.1 (Build 2600)
Exit Time:        1:00 am, Monday, January 1 1601
Elapsed Time:     0:00:35.515
Process Time:     0:00:05.687
System Calls:     865096     
Context Switches: 145642     
Page Faults:      69529      
Bytes Read:       96329391   
Bytes Written:    361675     
Bytes Other:      1083219    

> Anyway, AFAIU, your tests indicate that it would be okay to install
> the above changes on the development trunk, right?

Yes.

-- 
Claudio