<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Linux on JVQ.net</title>
    <link>https://jvq.net/tags/linux/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Linux on JVQ.net</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://jvq.net/tags/linux/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>jvq 0.6 Counts Instructions Under Valgrind to Catch a 2 Percent Slowdown on a Noisy Runner</title>
      <link>https://jvq.net/jvq-0.6-counts-instructions-under-valgrind-to-catch-a-2-percent-slowdown-on-a-noisy-runner/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://jvq.net/jvq-0.6-counts-instructions-under-valgrind-to-catch-a-2-percent-slowdown-on-a-noisy-runner/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Time is a noisy thing to gate on. On our 2-core test machine the same benchmark spreads 7 to 9% from run to run, so jvq&amp;rsquo;s default budget is 5%, and a 2% slowdown walks straight through. It should, given the noise. But 2% is real, and a dozen of them add up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Version 0.6 has a second way to measure. The &lt;code&gt;instructions&lt;/code&gt; adapter runs the benchmark under valgrind&amp;rsquo;s cachegrind and counts every instruction it executes. A count doesn&amp;rsquo;t care how busy the machine is. Run the same program twice and you get nearly the same number, so the budget can drop to 1%.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
