> -----Original Message----- > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 6:40 PM > To: Rahul Rameshbabu <rrameshbabu@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Zaki, Ahmed <ahmed.zaki@xxxxxxxxx>; Lobakin, Aleksander > <aleksander.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx>; alexandre.torgue@xxxxxxxxxxx; > andrew@xxxxxxx; corbet@xxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dtatulea@xxxxxxxxxx; > edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx; gal@xxxxxxxxxx; hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx; Keller, Jacob E > <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx>; jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx; joabreu@xxxxxxxxxxxx; > justinstitt@xxxxxxxxxx; kory.maincent@xxxxxxxxxxx; leon@xxxxxxxxxx; linux- > doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; liuhangbin@xxxxxxxxx; > maxime.chevallier@xxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx; > Greenwalt, Paul <paul.greenwalt@xxxxxxxxx>; Kitszel, Przemyslaw > <przemyslaw.kitszel@xxxxxxxxx>; rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; > richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx; saeed@xxxxxxxxxx; tariqt@xxxxxxxxxx; > vadim.fedorenko@xxxxxxxxx; vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx; Drewek, Wojciech > <wojciech.drewek@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/6] ethtool: add interface to read Tx hardware > timestamping statistics > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:50:39 -0700 Rahul Rameshbabu wrote: > > > Should we give some guidance to drivers which "ignore" time stamping > > > requests if they used up all the "slots"? Even if just temporary until > > > they are fixed? Maybe we can add after all the fields something like: > > > > > > For drivers which ignore further timestamping requests when there are > > > too many in flight, the ignored requests are currently not counted by > > > any of the statistics. > > > > I was actually thinking it would be better to merge them into the error > > counter temporarily. Reason being is that in the case Intel notices that > > their slots are full, they just drop traffic from my understanding > > today. If the error counters increment in that situation, it helps with > > the debug to a degree. EBUSY is an error in general. > > That works, too, let's recommend it (FWIW no preference whether > in the entry for @err or somewhere separately in the kdoc). We don't drop traffic, we send the packets just fine.. We just never report a timestamp for them, since we don't program the hardware to capture that timestamp.
