On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 08:57:23AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 18:26:35 +0300 Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > Normally I'd say put the stats in ethtool -S and the rest in debugfs > > > but I'm not sure if exposing pages_state_hold_cnt and > > > pages_state_release_cnt directly. Those are short counters, and will > > > very likely wrap. They are primarily meaningful for calculating > > > page_pool_inflight(). Given this I think their semantics may be too > > > confusing for an average ethtool -S user. > > > > > > Putting all the information in debugfs seems like a better idea. > > > > I can't really disagree on the aforementioned stats being confusing. > > However at some point we'll want to add more useful page_pool stats (e.g the > > percentage of the page/page fragments that are hitting the recycling path). > > Would it still be 'ok' to have info split across ethtool and debugfs? > > Possibly. We'll also see what Alex L comes up with for XDP stats. Maybe > we can arrive at a netlink API for standard things (broken record). > > You said percentage - even tho I personally don't like it - there is a > small precedent of ethtool -S containing non-counter information (IOW > not monotonically increasing event counters), e.g. some vendors rammed > PCI link quality in there. So if all else fails ethtool -S should be > fine. Yea percentage may have been the wrong example. I agree that having absolute numbers (all allocated pages and recycled pages) is a better option. To be honest keeping the 'weird' stats in debugfs seems sane, the pages_state_hold_cnt/pages_state_release_cnt are only going to be needed during debug. Thanks /Ilias
