Quoting r. Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: questions and a comment on the perftest package > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Quoting Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Whouldn't it make more sense to get one time stamp before the i'th posting > >> and one tstamp after the i'th completion is reaped from the cq? > > > > That's what we do, anyway - look how this works: > > > > stamp[0] > > post > > poll > > stamp[1] > > post > > poll > > stamp[2] > > .... > > > > so stamp[i] is taken before the i'th posting > > and stamp[i+1] is after the i'th completion. > > 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. However, isn't it the case that just giving tx depth = 1 to rdma_bw we get all the necessary deltas? 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. -- MST _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
