Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.development.apps > #417
| Path | csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.glorb.com!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!news.netfront.net!reversiblemaps.ath.cx!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.development.apps |
| Subject | Re: algorithm benchmarking |
| Date | 7 Feb 2012 11:11:12 GMT |
| Organization | Dis (not Dat) Organisation |
| Lines | 32 |
| Message-ID | <jgr0sg$d51$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx> (permalink) |
| References | <17766052.2213.1328397289309.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtq34> |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 118.90.98.113 |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=UTF-8 |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 8bit |
| X-Trace | adenine.netfront.net 1328614245 57402 118.90.98.113 (7 Feb 2012 11:30:45 GMT) |
| X-Complaints-To | news@netfront.net |
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:30:45 +0000 (UTC) |
| X-Face | ?)Aw4rXwN5u0~$nqKj`xPz>xHCwgi^q+^?Ri*+R(&uv2=E1Q0Zk(>h!~o2ID@6{uf8s;a +M[5[U[QT7xFN%^gR"=tuJw%TXXR'Fp~W;(T"1(739R%m0Yyyv*gkGoPA.$b,D.w:z+<'"=-lVT?6 {T?=R^:W5g|E2#EhjKCa+nt":4b}dU7GYB*HBxn&Td$@f%.kl^:7X8rQWd[NTc"P"u6nkisze/Q;8 "9Z{peQF,w)7UjV$c|RO/mQW/NMgWfr5*$-Z%u46"/00mx-,\R'fLPe.)^ |
| User-Agent | slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux) |
| Xref | x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.os.linux.development.apps:417 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On 2012-02-04, SethP <kaioptera@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there, > > I'd like to benchmark some algorithms and while I'm an experienced coder, linux internals is definitely not my area of expertise, so I have some questions: > > My current idea is to have the benchmarking tool start the algorithm > implementation as a child process, then get its /proc/PID/status mem > info as a baseline, then send the child a signal to tell it to start, > and then wait for the algorithm to send a signal indicating it's > finished, then get its procinfo again and then kill it. So the > algorithm implementation would need to adhere to the signaling spec > and sleep when it's done and that's it. > Is this really dumb? I'm impressed. > I obviously have no idea what I'm talking > about; I'd just like to measure as close to the algorithm as possible > to get accurate benchmarks, without imposing a lot of complexity on > the algorithm implementer. another way would be to get the implementor to code the algorithm as a shared library and use dlopen to plug it into the test suite, this gives tighter control of the start state, and more room for verifying the result... -- ⚂⚃ 100% natural --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
Back to comp.os.linux.development.apps | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar
algorithm benchmarking SethP <kaioptera@gmail.com> - 2012-02-04 15:14 -0800 Re: algorithm benchmarking Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2012-02-07 11:11 +0000
csiph-web