Change-Id: I9ba1caa4862bdf9ffc9c0e637bd69cce91fd8468
Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/168740
Reviewed-by: Herb Derby <herb@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Mike Klein <mtklein@google.com>
I keep seeing it show up on the profile(usually under memmove) of tight
benchmarks and it's kind of distracting. We don't even print it when
we pass --quiet, so that seems like a nice way to stifle it.
Change-Id: I3a67a7ca1758fd35e3b63cfeeddeac4ff1ffe38d
Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/157520
Auto-Submit: Mike Klein <mtklein@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
Adds a nanobench mode that takes samples for a fixed amount of time,
rather than taking a fixed amount of samples.
BUG=skia:
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1204153002
This seems to be ~100x higher resolution than QueryPerformanceCounter. AFAIK, all our Windows perf bots have constant_tsc, so we can be a bit more direct about using rdtsc directly: it'll always tick at the max CPU frequency.
Now, the question remains, what is the max CPU frequency to divide through by? It looks like QueryPerformanceFrequency actually gives the CPU frequency in kHz, suspiciously exactly what we need to divide through to get elapsed milliseconds. That was a freebie.
I did some before/after comparison on slow benchmarks. Timings look the same. Going to land this without review tonight to see what happens on the bots; happy to review carefully tomorrow.
R=mtklein@google.com
TBR=bungeman
BUG=skia:
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/394363003
