On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 03:33:14PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 09:31:14AM -0700, Joe Damato wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 09:39:43AM -0700, Joe Damato wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:28:18AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 22:54:50 -0700 Joe Damato wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 05:57:18PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:42:13 -1000 Joe Damato wrote: > > > > > > > I realized in this case, I'll need to set the fields initialized to 0xff > > > > > > > above to 0 before doing the increments below. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know mlx4 very well, but glancing at the code - are you sure we > > > > > > need to loop over the queues is the "base" callbacks? > > > > > > > > > > > > The base callbacks are for getting "historical" data, i.e. info which > > > > > > was associated with queues which are no longer present. You seem to > > > > > > sweep all queues, so I'd have expected "base" to just set the values > > > > > > to 0. And the real values to come from the per-queue callbacks. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm. Sorry I must have totally misunderstood what the purpose of "base" > > > > > was. I've just now more closely looked at bnxt which (maybe?) is the only > > > > > driver that implements base and I think maybe I kind of get it now. > > > > > > > > > > For some reason, I thought it meant "the total stats of all queues"; I didn't > > > > > know it was intended to provide "historical" data as you say. > > > > > > > > > > Making it set everything to 0 makes sense to me. I suppose I could also simply > > > > > omit it? What do you think? > > > > > > > > The base is used to figure out which stats are reported when we dump > > > > a summary for the whole device. So you gotta set them to 0. > > > > > > OK, thanks for your patience and the explanation. Will do. > > > > > > > > > The init to 0xff looks quite sus. > > > > > > > > > > Yes the init to 0xff is wrong, too. I noticed that, as well. > > > > > > > > > > Here's what I have listed so far in my changelog for the v2 (which I haven't > > > > > sent yet), but perhaps the maintainers of mlx4 can weigh in? > > > > > > > > > > v1 -> v2: > > > > > - Patch 1/3 now initializes dropped to 0. > > > > > - Patch 3/3 includes several changes: > > > > > - mlx4_get_queue_stats_rx and mlx4_get_queue_stats_tx check if i is > > > > > valid before proceeding. > > > > > - All initialization to 0xff for stats fields has been omit. The > > > > > network stack does this before calling into the driver functions, so > > > > > I've adjusted the driver functions to only set values if there is > > > > > data to set, leaving the network stack's 0xff in place if not. > > > > > - mlx4_get_base_stats sets all stats to 0 (no locking etc needed). > > > > > > > > All the ones you report right? Not just zero the struct. > > > > Any day now (tm) someone will add a lot more stats to the struct > > > > so the init should be selective only to the stats that are actually > > > > supported. > > > > > > Yes, not just zero the struct. Since I am reporting bytes packets for both > > > RX and TX and alloc_fail for RX I'll be setting those fields to 0 > > > explicitly. > > > > > > And there's also a warning about unused qtype (oops) in patch 2/3. > > > > > > So, the revised v2 list (pending anything Mellanox wants) is: > > > > > > v1 -> v2: > > > - Patch 1/3 now initializes dropped to 0. > > > - Patch 2/3 fix use of unitialized qtype warning. > > > - Patch 3/3 includes several changes: > > > - mlx4_get_queue_stats_rx and mlx4_get_queue_stats_tx check if i is > > > valid before proceeding. > > > - All initialization to 0xff for stats fields has been omit. The > > > network stack does this before calling into the driver functions, so > > > I've adjusted the driver functions to only set values if there is > > > data to set, leaving the network stack's 0xff in place if not. > > > - mlx4_get_base_stats set all stat fields to 0 individually (no locking etc needed). > > > > > > I'll hold off on sending this v2 until we hear back from Mellanox to be > > > sure there isn't anything else I'm missing. > > > > It's been a few days and I haven't heard back from the mlx4 folks, so I > > think I'll probably send my v2 later today which, hopefully, will fix most > > of the above issues. > > MLNX folks were in long vacation in last two weeks. OK, thanks for letting me know. If any of those folks are following this thread, I hope they'll take a look at the v2 of this series. I was prepared to send the v3 today, but given that they've been out for a bit I will hold off on sending the v3 for another day or two. Thanks, Joe
