From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: <9fans@9fans.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon,  1 Aug 2011 18:49:31 -0500
From: EBo <ebo@sandien.com>
In-Reply-To: <15ba52af934b85664a1f864d3d3a6b2c@terzarima.net>
References: <15ba52af934b85664a1f864d3d3a6b2c@terzarima.net>
Message-ID: <c99dfd1e002e8e09dbb5fcf6d0b45e04@swcp.com>
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.4-trunk
Subject: Re: [9fans] =?utf-8?q?nsec_limits=3F?=
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0a125b6c-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

 On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 00:19:32 +0100, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> ron, by contrast, was timing a particular short interaction, which
> might be repeated
> a great many times (and thus mount up),
> where non-trivial overhead of taking the measurement could easily
> hide significant differences
> between two implementations, hence the use of a timer provided
> directly by hardware.

 With the course timing I am currently doing this should be OK, but if I
 end up doing finer scale testing it will probably be in the us range.
 So, I would like to figure out how to do low overhead measurements if it
 will not take a lot of my time to get it working.