2 ms·
Wow, hundreds of milliseconds is a lot worse than I'd expect. I'm not shocked that it's slower than something like plain `rdtsc` (single digit nanoseconds?) bu
by loeg 3y ago
Wow, hundreds of milliseconds is a lot worse than I'd expect. I'm not shocked that it's slower than something like plain `rdtsc` (single digit nanoseconds?) but that excuses maybe microseconds of overhead -- not milliseconds and certainly not hundreds of milliseconds.
- gok 3y agoIt's hundreds of milliseconds to do a a million iterations. A single time check is hundreds of nanoseconds.
- loeg 3y agoOh, thanks. The table was unlabeled and I missed that in the text. Hundreds of nanos isn't great but it's certainly better than milliseconds.
- layer8 3y agoThat’s for a million iterations, so really nanoseconds.