On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:32:09AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 11:25:50 +0100 > Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 22:07:32 +0100 > > > Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > @@ -2033,6 +2050,7 @@ mvneta_xdp_submit_frame(struct mvneta_port *pp, struct mvneta_tx_queue *txq, > > > > u64_stats_update_begin(&stats->syncp); > > > > stats->es.ps.tx_bytes += xdpf->len; > > > > stats->es.ps.tx_packets++; > > > > + stats->es.ps.xdp_tx++; > > > > u64_stats_update_end(&stats->syncp); > > > > > > I find it confusing that this ethtool stats is named "xdp_tx". > > > Because you use it as an "xmit" counter and not for the action XDP_TX. > > > > > > Both XDP_TX and XDP_REDIRECT out this device will increment this > > > "xdp_tx" counter. I don't think end-users will comprehend this... > > > > > > What about naming it "xdp_xmit" ? > > > > Hi Jesper, > > > > yes, I think it is definitely better. So to follow up: > > - rename current "xdp_tx" counter in "xdp_xmit" and increment it for > > XDP_TX verdict and for ndo_xdp_xmit > > - introduce a new "xdp_tx" counter only for XDP_TX verdict. > > > > If we agree I can post a follow-up patch. > > I agree, that sounds like an improvement to this patchset. > > > I suspect David Ahern have some opinions about more general stats for > XDP, but that it is a more general discussion, that it outside this > patchset, but we should also have that discussion. Hi Jesper I've not been following XDP too much, but xdp_xmit seems pretty generic. It would be nice if all drivers used the same statistics names. Less user confusion that way. So why is this outside of the discussion? Andrew
