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 ? Or. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
