On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Gwendal Grignou <[email protected]> wrote: > When commands when requeued for the verify operation, > their start time was not reset, resulting in bogus latency graphs.
Does it really make sense to account for the verification pass in the latency profile? Regards, Andrey > > Signed-off-by: Gwendal Grignou <[email protected]> > --- > backend.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/backend.c b/backend.c > index 7ec8d2a..0f6e425 100644 > --- a/backend.c > +++ b/backend.c > @@ -565,6 +565,8 @@ static void do_verify(struct thread_data *td, uint64_t > verify_bytes) > io_u->end_io = verify_io_u; > > ddir = io_u->ddir; > + if (!td->o.disable_slat) > + fio_gettime(&io_u->start_time, NULL); > > ret = td_io_queue(td, io_u); > switch (ret) { > -- > 2.2.0.rc0.207.ga3a616c > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
