Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: xilinx: axienet: Add statistics support

[Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@linux.dev>]

On 6/10/24 20:13, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 07:10:22PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> Add support for reading the statistics counters, if they are enabled.
>> The counters may be 64-bit, but we can't detect this as there's no
>> ability bit for it and the counters are read-only. Therefore, we assume
>> the counters are 32-bits.
> 
>> +static void axienet_stats_update(struct axienet_local *lp)
>> +{
>> +	enum temac_stat stat;
>> +
>> +	lockdep_assert_held(&lp->stats_lock);
>> +
>> +	u64_stats_update_begin(&lp->hw_stat_sync);
>> +	for (stat = 0; stat < STAT_COUNT; stat++) {
>> +		u32 counter = axienet_ior(lp, XAE_STATS_OFFSET + stat * 8);
> 
> The * 8 here suggests the counters are spaced so that they could be 64
> bit wide, even when only 32 bits are used.

Correct.

> Does the documentation say anything about the upper 32 bits when the
> counters are only 32 bits?  Are they guaranteed to read as zero? I'm
> just wondering if the code should be forward looking and read all 64
> bits? 

The registers are documented as being 32-bit, with the upper 32-bits
being registered upon reading the lower 32 bits. The documentation
doesn't say what the upper registers are when the counters are 32 bits.

>>  static int __axienet_device_reset(struct axienet_local *lp)
>>  {
>>  	u32 value;
>>  	int ret;
>>  
>> +	/* Save statistics counters in case they will be reset */
>> +	if (lp->features & XAE_FEATURE_STATS) {
>> +		mutex_lock(&lp->stats_lock);
>> +		axienet_stats_update(lp);
>> +	}
> 
> It is a pretty unusual pattern to split a mutex lock/unlock like this
> on an if statement. Maybe just unconditionally hold the mutex? This
> does not appear to be anyway hot path, so the overhead should not
> matter.

OK

--Sean

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel