[openib-general] questions and a comment on the perftest package

[Or Gerlitz]

Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Quoting Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz at voltaire.com>:
>> 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.