From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michele Baldessari Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:35:41 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: support per-association stats via a new SCTP_GET_ASSOC_STATS call Message-Id: <20121027113541.GA7966@marquez.int.rhx> List-Id: References: <1351258973-17227-1-git-send-email-michele@acksyn.org> <20121026143704.GC25087@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: <20121026143704.GC25087@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Neil Horman , Vlad Yasevich Cc: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Graf Hi Neil & Vlad, On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:37:04AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > We already have files in /proc/net/sctp to count snmp system-wide totals, > per-endpoint totals, and per association totals. Why do these stats differently > instead of just adding them the per-association file? I get that solaris does > this, but its not codified in any of the RFC's or other standards. I would > really rather see something like this go into the interfaces we have, rather > than creating a new one. > > I also am a bit confused regarding the stats themselves. Most are fairly clear, > but some seem lacking (you count most things sent and received, but only count > received gap acks). Others seems vague and or confusing (when counting > retransmitted chunks and packets, how do you count a packet that has both new > and retransmitted chunks)? And the max observed rto stat is just odd. Each > transport has an rto value, not each association, and you cal already see the > individual transport rto values in /proc/net/sctp/remaddr. thanks a lot for your time reviewing this. I will try to address all your comments in a second version of the patch. One thing I am not too sure though: do you prefer me extending /proc/net/sctp/* or implement a new call. I ask because from a previous private communication with Vlad the new socket option seemed to be the preferred approach. I am fine either way just let me know ;) cheers, -- Michele Baldessari C2A5 9DA3 9961 4FFB E01B D0BC DDD4 DCCB 7515 5C6D