On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:13:33AM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
> On 02-Apr-19 21:35, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 04:36:42PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
> >> On 01-Apr-19 16:26, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 03:04:55PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
> >>>> On 01-Apr-19 11:47, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >>>>> From: Mark Zhang <markz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Add an API to support set/clear per-port auto mode.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Zhang <markz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Majd Dibbiny <majd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> +void rdma_counter_init(struct ib_device *dev)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct rdma_port_counter *port_counter;
> >>>>> + u32 port;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (!dev->ops.alloc_hw_stats)
> >>>>
> >>>> Why is alloc_hw_stats needed?
> >>>
> >>> We are using mlx5_ib Q-counters to bind/unbind and they are allocated through
> >>> alloc_hw_stat interface. This interface is not available in all flavours of mlx4.
> >>
> >> What about other drivers which are not mlx4/5?
> >> From an API standpoint, I don't see a reason to require alloc_hw_stats.
> >>
> >> This kinda relates to my question of whether these new counters are related to
> >> the existing hw_counters. This check suggests that they are, but I don't
> >> understand why.
> >
> > I see "rdma statistics ..." as an ultimate tool to present everything
> > related to device statistics. It includes already exposed HW counters.
> > This is an extra reason why we want ops.alloc_hw_stats check.
>
> The rdma statistics is the userspace entry point to two (or more) kernel APIs,
> we shouldn't add a dependency between the kernel APIs themselves.
Any future code can move this alloc_hw_stat protection code down to the
driver code later on, for now, statistics are returned for drivers who
implemented such statistics, which includes all active drivers.
Thanks
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
