On 2025-03-06 13:10:12 [+0200], Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > On 06/03/2025 11:56, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2025-03-06 11:50:27 [+0200], Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > On 06/03/2025 10:32, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > Could I keep it as-is for now with the removal of the counter from the > > > > RQ since we don't have the per-queue/ ring API for it now? > > > > > > I'm fine with transition to generic APIs, as long as we get no regression. > > > We must keep the per-ring counters exposed. > > > > I don't see a regression. > > Could you please show me how per-ring counters for page_pool_stats are > > exposed at the moment? Maybe I am missing something important. > > > > What do you see in your ethtool -S? Now, after comparing it again I noticed that there is | rx_pp_alloc_fast: 27783 | rx0_pp_alloc_fast: 441 | rx1_pp_alloc_fast: 441 which I didn't noticed earlier. I didn't rx0,1,… for pp_alloc_fast. Thanks. Sebastian
