On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 9:17 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 21:23:47 +0200 Gal Pressman wrote: > > > It appears that rx_fifo_errors is a more appropriate counter for this purpose. > > > I will submit a v2. Thanks for your suggestion. > > > > Probably not a good idea: > > * This statistics was used interchangeably with @rx_over_errors. > > * Not recommended for use in drivers for high speed interfaces. > > FWIW we can change the definition. Let me copy paste below the commit > which added the docs because it has the background. > > tl;dr is that I was trying to push drivers towards a single stat to > keep things simple. If we have a clear definition of how rx_fifo_errors > would differ - we can reuse it and update the doc. For example if > rx_discards_phy usually means that the adapter itself is overwhelmed > (too many rules etc) that would be a pretty clear, since rx_missed is > supposed to primarily indicate that the host rings are full or perhaps > the PCIe interface of the NIC is struggling. But not the packet > processing. Thanks for providing the background. What do you suggest—should we report rx_discards_phy via rx_fifo_errors and update the documentation accordingly? -- Regards Yafang
