Hi Jakub, >> [...] >> >> The function kmem_cache_size is used to retrieve the size of a slab >> object. Note that it returns the "object_size" field, not the "size" >> field. If needed, a new function (e.g., kmem_cache_full_size) could be >> added to return the "size" field. To match the definition from the >> draft, the number of bytes is computed as follows: >> >> slabinfo.active_objs * size >> >> Thoughts? > > Implementing the standard is one thing but how useful is this > in practice? IMHO, very useful. To be honest, if I were to implement only a few data fields, these two would be both included. Take the example of CLT [1] where the queue length data field is used to detect low-level issues from inside a L5-7 distributed tracing tool. And this is just one example among many others. The queue length data field is very specific to TX queues, but we could also use the buffer occupancy data field to detect more global loads on a node. Actually, the goal for operators running their IOAM domain is to quickly detect a problem along a path and react accordingly (human or automatic action). For example, if you monitor TX queues along a path and detect an increasing queue on a router, you could choose to, e.g., rebalance its queues. With the buffer occupancy, you could detect high-loaded nodes in general and, e.g., rebalance traffic to another branch. Again, this is just one example among others. Apart from more accurate ECMPs, you could for instance deploy a smart (micro)service selection based on different metrics, etc. [1] https://github.com/Advanced-Observability/cross-layer-telemetry
