[ITK-dev] ITKPerformanceBenchmarks

[Bill Lorensen]

Why can't these changes be made to our existing timing classes?


On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Matt McCormick
<matt.mccormick at kitware.com> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> This work is based off work of Stephen and Sebastien as described here:
>
>   http://www.na-mic.org/Wiki/index.php/User:Barre/ITK_Registration_Optimization
>
> Essentially, we get more accurate timing results when bumping up the
> operating system threads' and process' priority.
>
> Hyun Jae Kang is working on this, and we were discussing it this
> afternoon.  The current plan for next steps is to refactor the
> generally re-usable support code, like the high-priority time probes,
> as an ITK External module while as it is being actively developed.
> Once the dust has settled, the path forward will be more clear.  Maybe
> the improvements should be integrated into existing classes or maybe
> they should be made available in a Remote module.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm curious about the motivation for the subject work. I'll admit I
>> have not reviewed all of the commits. How does this work differ from
>> the existing timing support in ITK?
>>
>> https://github.com/InsightSoftwareConsortium/ITKPerformanceBenchmarks/pull/1
>>
>> Do we need another way to measure timing or should we improve what we
>> already have?
>>
>> Bill
>> _______________________________________________
>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>
>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>
>> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
>> http://kitware.com/products/protraining.php
>>
>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
>> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>>
>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers



-- 
Unpaid intern in BillsBasement at noware dot com