On 16/11/2024 0:42, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:09:02 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote: >>>> rx_dropped: Number of packets received but not processed, >>>> * e.g. due to lack of resources or unsupported protocol. >>>> * For hardware interfaces this counter may include packets discarded >>>> * due to L2 address filtering but should not include packets dropped >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> * by the device due to buffer exhaustion which are counted separately in >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> * @rx_missed_errors (since procfs folds those two counters together). >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> >>> I presume you quote this comment to indicate the rx_dropped should >>> count packets dropped due to buffer exhaustion? If yes then you don't >>> understand the comment. If no then I don't understand why you're >>> quoting it. >> >> I quoted this because you suggested to use rx_dropped. It's not a good fit. >> In your previous reply you said: >> "but honestly I'd just make sure they are counted in rx_dropped" > > The comment just says not to add what's already counted in missed, > because profcs adds the two and we'd end up double counting. So this is a procfs thing only? Does that mean that netlink's rx_dropped might be different than procfs' rx_dropped?
