Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Quoting r. Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> oops, i have just noted that read_lat.c practically ignores the tx_depth >> param... so stamp[i+1]-stamp[i] is indeed the wall time of the i'th >> operation. Anyway, i guess you would be open to get a patch that does >> exercise tx_depth in a similar fashion to read_bw.c ?
> Something like this has been on my todo list for a while. OK, anyway, we will not be able to work on this immediately, but this way or another we need a way to measure the latency per op per tx_depth and transfer size, so unless you would fix it before, we would need to do so... > However, isn't it the case that just giving tx depth = 1 to rdma_bw we get > all the necessary deltas? i was talking about read_lat.c and i want to get the correct delta for each possible value of tx_depth, not just for tx_depth=1 > So the right thing to do, IMO, is to take rdma_bw and teach it to report > latency > as well. We thus will have a single test that measures both BW and latency > for > reads, and have number of in-flight messages as parameter. With tx_depth = 1 > we'll get ping-pong. I don't see who does the -pong here, its a client doing rdma read from (rdma write to) a server. Your suggestion makes sense, we will look into this. Or. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
