On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:05:31AM +0800, Jason Xing wrote: > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sometimes we need to know which one of backlog queue can be exactly > long enough to cause some latency when debugging this part is needed. > Thus, we can then separate the display of both. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > v2: keep the total len of backlog queues untouched as Eric said > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230311151756.83302-1-kerneljasonxing@xxxxxxxxx/ > --- > net/core/net-procfs.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/core/net-procfs.c b/net/core/net-procfs.c > index 1ec23bf8b05c..2809b663e78d 100644 > --- a/net/core/net-procfs.c > +++ b/net/core/net-procfs.c > @@ -115,10 +115,19 @@ static int dev_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v) > return 0; > } > > +static u32 softnet_input_pkt_queue_len(struct softnet_data *sd) > +{ > + return skb_queue_len_lockless(&sd->input_pkt_queue); > +} > + > +static u32 softnet_process_queue_len(struct softnet_data *sd) > +{ > + return skb_queue_len_lockless(&sd->process_queue); > +} > + > static u32 softnet_backlog_len(struct softnet_data *sd) > { > - return skb_queue_len_lockless(&sd->input_pkt_queue) + > - skb_queue_len_lockless(&sd->process_queue); > + return softnet_input_pkt_queue_len(sd) + softnet_process_queue_len(sd); > } > > static struct softnet_data *softnet_get_online(loff_t *pos) > @@ -169,12 +178,15 @@ static int softnet_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v) > * mapping the data a specific CPU > */ > seq_printf(seq, > - "%08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x\n", > + "%08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x " > + "%08x %08x\n", > sd->processed, sd->dropped, sd->time_squeeze, 0, > 0, 0, 0, 0, /* was fastroute */ > 0, /* was cpu_collision */ > sd->received_rps, flow_limit_count, > - softnet_backlog_len(sd), (int)seq->index); > + softnet_backlog_len(sd), /* keep it untouched */ I'm not sure the comment on the line above buys us much outside of the context of development of this patch. Likewise in patch 2/2. That not withstanding, this looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > + (int)seq->index, > + softnet_input_pkt_queue_len(sd), softnet_process_queue_len(sd)); > return 0; > } > > -- > 2.37.3 >
