On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> When commands when requeued for the verify operation,
> their start time was not reset, resulting in bogus latency graphs.
Does it really make sense to account for the verification pass in the
latency profile?
Regards,
Andrey
>
> Signed-off-by: Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> backend.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/backend.c b/backend.c
> index 7ec8d2a..0f6e425 100644
> --- a/backend.c
> +++ b/backend.c
> @@ -565,6 +565,8 @@ static void do_verify(struct thread_data *td, uint64_t verify_bytes)
> io_u->end_io = verify_io_u;
>
> ddir = io_u->ddir;
> + if (!td->o.disable_slat)
> + fio_gettime(&io_u->start_time, NULL);
>
> ret = td_io_queue(td, io_u);
> switch (ret) {
> --
> 2.2.0.rc0.207.ga3a616c
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
