-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le mercredi 21 octobre 2009 à 12:42 -0500, John Arbash Meinel a écrit : >> You can use time.clock() instead to get <15ms resolution. Changing all >> instances of 'time.time' to 'time.clock' gives me this result: > [snip] >> --- Latency --- >> >> Background CPU task: Pi calculation (Python) >> >> CPU threads=0: 24727 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.) >> CPU threads=1: 27930 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.) >> CPU threads=2: 31029 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.) >> CPU threads=3: 34170 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.) >> CPU threads=4: 37292 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.) > > Well apparently time.clock() has a per-process time reference, which > makes it unusable for this benchmark :-( > (the numbers above are obviously incorrect) > > Regards > > Antoine.
I believe that 'time.count()' is measured as seconds since the start of the process. So yeah, I think spawning a background process will reset this counter back to 0. John =:-> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrfTFYACgkQJdeBCYSNAAObWQCfRJsRENbcp6kuo2x1k+HvhYGZ ftsAn2PNnNHNj6D4esNBMhlSdH4IjeMA =1KWG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
