Hi Reshma, I mean in the latencystats document. A few lines about what is taken away by the library (the mbuf timestamp when PKT_RX_TIMESTAMP is set) would be very helpful.
Best regards, BL ----- Original Message ----- From: "reshma pattan" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: "Konstantin Ananyev" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 8:07:18 PM Subject: RE: [PATCH] latencystats: fix timestamp marking and latency calculation Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 3:58 AM > To: Pattan, Reshma <[email protected]>; Ananyev, Konstantin > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [PATCH] latencystats: fix timestamp marking and latency > calculation > > Hi Reshma, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 11:02 PM > > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > > Cc: Reshma Pattan <[email protected]> > > 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
