From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773A1326D for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 15:08:49 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Sep 2018 06:08:48 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,398,1531810800"; d="scan'208";a="85151744" Received: from irsmsx152.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.66]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2018 06:08:47 -0700 Received: from irsmsx109.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.156]) by IRSMSX152.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.200]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:08:47 +0100 From: "Pattan, Reshma" To: "longtb5@viettel.com.vn" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: Incorrect latencystats implementation Thread-Index: AQHUT/E39/whJiLATkuTiCuR+qc2OqT5JRqA Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:08:45 +0000 Message-ID: <3AEA2BF9852C6F48A459DA490692831F2A39B32D@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1537345496-70207-1-git-send-email-longtb5@viettel.com.vn> In-Reply-To: <1537345496-70207-1-git-send-email-longtb5@viettel.com.vn> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.200.100 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Incorrect latencystats implementation X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:08:49 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: longtb5@viettel.com.vn [mailto:longtb5@viettel.com.vn] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 9:17 AM > To: Pattan, Reshma > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Bao-Long Tran > Subject: Incorrect latencystats implementation >=20 >=20 > I have submit a patch to implement the trivial fix. For the drop case I c= an > think of 2 options. We can either clear timestamp when putting mbufs back > to their pool, or change lib latencystats implementation to perform packe= t > selection at TX callback and let RX callback add timestamp to every packe= t. > Both option could affect performance but I think the second option is les= s > aggressive. What happens when applications drop the packets? Do they free the mbuf? In such case, can application set the timestamp to 0 before freeing the mbu= f, instead of making these changes in latency library.?=20 Regards, Reshma