homepage

This patch uses an accurate POSIX clock if possible in the timeit module.

So does the accuracy outweigh using a Python function to call the actual clock function? (and usuable -> usable)

Well, you only call the clock at the begining and end of a timing run, not at each iteration.

_clocks = ['CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID', 'CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW',
 'CLOCK_MONOTONIC', 'CLOCK_REALTIME']
Beware, we're mixing CPU time and wall-clock time:
$ ./python -c "from time import *; id = CLOCK_REALTIME; t = clock_gettime(id); sleep(1); print(clock_gettime(id) - t)"
1.0011036396026611
$ ./python -c "from time import *; id = CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID; t = clock_gettime(id); sleep(1); print(clock_gettime(id) - t)"
9.480300000003217e-05
Right now, timeit measures wall-clock time:
"""
On either platform, the default timer functions measure wall clock time, not the CPU time. [...] On Unix, you can use clock() to measure CPU time.
"""
With CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID:
- depending on the platform, we'll measure either wall-clock time or CPU time
- preemtion, blocking syscalls, etc won't be accounted for (so, for example, I/O-related tests will be meaningless)

> With CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID:
> - depending on the platform, we'll measure either wall-clock time or
> CPU time
Indeed. I thought CPU time would be more useful (and that's the point of
the patch) but perhaps it breaks the spec.
> - preemtion, blocking syscalls, etc won't be accounted for (so, for
> example, I/O-related tests will be meaningless)
But does it include kernel CPU time for the given process?

> Indeed. I thought CPU time would be more useful (and that's the point
> of the patch)
Ah, OK.
Then you should probably rename the issue "make timeit measure CPU time", or something like that, because I really thought this issue was about using a more accurate clock (less jitter, can't go backward, etc). And also update the documentation :-)
> but perhaps it breaks the spec.
Well, I almost never use timeit so I can't make a call, but that's definitely a semantics change, and this may puzzle some users, especially since it will really depend on the OS/kernel version in use (and so it won't be documented).
> But does it include kernel CPU time for the given process?
Yes. But it won't be reliable, for example, to measure the performance of a new readinto() implentation, since time spent by the process in 'S' or 'D' state won't be accounted for.

> > But does it include kernel CPU time for the given process?
> 
> Yes. But it won't be reliable, for example, to measure the performance
> of a new readinto() implentation, since time spent by the process in
> 'S' or 'D' state won't be accounted for.
Then I'm not sure this is a good idea anymore.

I think this should be rejected.

Are CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW, CLOCK_MONOTONIC and CLOCK_REALTIME more accurate than gettimeofday (time.time)?

> Are CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW, CLOCK_MONOTONIC and CLOCK_REALTIME more accurate than gettimeofday (time.time)?
Actually, on Linux gettimeofday() returns CLOCK_REALTIME.
As for CLOCK_MONOTONIC{_RAW}, they're guaranteed not to go backward
(NTP and such).
But I think Antoine was referring to CPU time vs wall clock time (but
see comments above while this is probably a bad idea).
> I think this should be rejected.
Agreed.

Ok, closing.