Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 00/26] net: introduce and use generic XDP stats

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>]

Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com> writes:

> From: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>
> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 17:39:29 +0100
>
> Ok, open questions:
>
> 1. Channels vs queues vs global.
>
> Jakub: no per-channel.
> David (Ahern): it's worth it to separate as Rx/Tx.
> Toke is fine with globals at the end I think?

Well, I don't like throwing data away, so in that sense I do like
per-queue stats, but it's not a very strong preference (i.e., I can live
with either)...

> My point was that for most of the systems we have 1:1 Rx:Tx
> (usually num_online_cpus()), so asking drivers separately for
> the number of RQs and then SQs would end up asking for the same
> number twice.
> But the main reason TBH was that most of the drivers store stats
> on a per-channel basis and I didn't want them to regress in
> functionality. I'm fine with reporting only netdev-wide if
> everyone are.
>
> In case if we keep per-channel: report per-channel only by request
> and cumulative globals by default to not flood the output?

... however if we do go with per-channel stats I do agree that they
shouldn't be in the default output. I guess netlink could still split
them out and iproute2 could just sum them before display?

> 2. Count all errors as "drops" vs separately.
>
> Daniel: account everything as drops, plus errors should be
> reported as exceptions for tracing sub.
> Jesper: we shouldn't mix drops and errors.
>
> My point: we shouldn't, that's why there are patches for 2 drivers
> to give errors a separate counter.
> I provided an option either to report all errors together ('errors'
> in stats structure) or to provide individual counters for each of
> them (sonamed ctrs), but personally prefer detailed errors. However,
> they might "go detailed" under trace_xdp_exception() only, sound
> fine (OTOH in RTNL stats we have both "general" errors and detailed
> error counters).

I agree it would be nice to have a separate error counter, but a single
counter is enough when combined with the tracepoints.

> 3. XDP and XSK ctrs separately or not.
>
> My PoV is that those are two quite different worlds.
> However, stats for actions on XSK really make a little sense since
> 99% of time we have xskmap redirect. So I think it'd be fine to just
> expand stats structure with xsk_{rx,tx}_{packets,bytes} and count
> the rest (actions, errors) together with XDP.

A whole set of separate counters for XSK is certainly overkill. No
strong preference as to whether they need a separate counter at all...

> Rest:
>  - don't create a separate `ip` command and report under `-s`;
>  - save some RTNL skb space by skipping zeroed counters.
>
> Also, regarding that I count all on the stack and then add to the
> storage once in a polling cycle -- most drivers don't do that and
> just increment the values in the storage directly, but this can be
> less performant for frequently updated stats (or it's just my
> embedded past).
> Re u64 vs u64_stats_t -- the latter is more universal and
> architecture-friendly, the former is used directly in most of the
> drivers primarily because those drivers and the corresponding HW
> are being run on 64-bit systems in the vast majority of cases, and
> Ethtools stats themselves are not so critical to guard them with
> anti-tearing. Anyways, local64_t is cheap on ARM64/x86_64 I guess?

I'm generally a fan of correctness first, so since you're touching all
the drivers anyway why I'd say go for u64_stats_t :)

-Toke

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization