Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: long...@viettel.com.vn [mailto:long...@viettel.com.vn] > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 3:58 AM > To: Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pat...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH] latencystats: fix timestamp marking and latency > calculation > > Hi Reshma, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: reshma.pat...@intel.com [mailto:reshma.pat...@intel.com] > > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 11:02 PM > > To: long...@viettel.com.vn; konstantin.anan...@intel.com; > dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: Reshma Pattan <reshma.pat...@intel.com> > > Subject: [PATCH] latencystats: fix timestamp marking and latency > calculation > > > > Latency calculation logic is not correct for the case where packets > > gets dropped before TX. As for the dropped packets, the timestamp is > > not cleared, and such packets still gets counted for latency > > calculation in > next > > runs, that will result in inaccurate latency measurement. > > > > So fix this issue as below, > > > > Before setting timestamp in mbuf, check mbuf don't have any prior > > valid time stamp flag set and after marking the timestamp, set mbuf > > flags to indicate timestamp is valid. > > > > Before calculating timestamp check mbuf flags are set to indicate > timestamp > > is valid. > > > > This solution as suggested by Konstantin is great. Not only does it solve the > problem but also now the usage of mbuf->timestamp is not exclusive to > latencystats anymore. The application can make use of timestamp at the > same as latencystats simply by toggling PKT_RX_TIMESTAMP. I think we > should update the doc to include this information. >
Do you mean latency stats document? Or Mbuf doc. Thanks, Reshma
