From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3852AA0096 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:45:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 499821B1F6; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:45:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706CE1B1E8 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:45:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A6E2211C; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:45:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:45:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=p7jYHH/uw4MpDU3y1B+sAMWJnJJS4AXyNcEtGOOTHCk=; b=bloE9e8Yc0M6 FkDUIbpzM/yO82DI/FDY+toAEC4qua6j+4cfOMt6BGqlCrwdU7vfAQ9P8qRg0smk Yf4BsZV0q0XYjoCWSZWf6bPdcC7uKNjDgLQvg4SFofNjtisXnfs7TGAg6k56Hfm5 gxKyndXiIatprd1QNZfg3/WPa7jMZUI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=p7jYHH/uw4MpDU3y1B+sAMWJnJJS4AXyNcEtGOOTH Ck=; b=k1JSLIp7POh/xRhkQZ3eEo+sXQr/FNvxqcgI5kyXebpN9jdG/Fg0Am945 lG0UsDsrHterz8fjoyHSpzMC6kZh40Q0PulvzSM6y19oG7a9JlIYR3I2tID3KeHc 8supX1LVMh+lYdRtndB+Xe+VuKKmoaS5Qvq5QWVhNOCUrzCJVVQsapKgd5KyWpYc MEldwC7TgdppRmV8fd+HWpxIGkEsEJGeMR44lj/j7BzOmalxXp3GazksKcDt48Kx +rkBS4F5wkQHpTI7vCylc1MZSprUWMdsSBa8ta1YYPP3rRPVZuDuz+c3umtwNoGj 32PFTt7FWdHUEIJDxVyIhM1Nnt3eA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrvddugdeilecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 19BB5E4173; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:45:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand , Andrew Rybchenko Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:45:28 +0200 Message-ID: <2700501.70IsncsQEY@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <1551698315-2611-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com> <3634944.uUV1zRL3KC@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 00/12] rxq q_errors[] statistics fixes X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Message-ID: <20190412154528.wc8OyEYJOW7Rnl3gZUSA7dtM1JRAarF3YKCsVQmG4iA@z> 12/04/2019 17:38, Ferruh Yigit: > On 4/12/2019 4:07 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 11/03/2019 18:22, Ferruh Yigit: > >> On 3/4/2019 11:18 AM, David Marchand wrote: > >>> According to the api, the q_errors[] per queue statistic is for reception > >>> errors not transmit errors. > >>> This is a first cleanup on statistics before looking at oerrors. > >>> > >> > >> Yes, the patchset looks aligned with the API documentation [1]. > >> > >> What can be the solution after cleanup? We can merge this cleanup and solution > >> next to each-other to not leave a gap? > > > > I think we should merge those fixes in 19.05-rc2. > > > > It seems there is a lot more work to achieve on stats, so better > > to start without waiting for the full picture. > > > > The problem is "q_errors" is available only for Rx queues, and David's patch is > preventing drivers to put Tx error stats into "q_errors" field. > > But it is clear that there is a need for a field for Tx queues errors. David has > another patch to using xstats for this. But I believe xstats is making solution > confusing, and now approach is unbalanced for Rx and Tx queues. > > I am for adding a new field for Tx queues "q_errors", and this will make getting > stats and David's patch very simple. > > The problem with the new fields is it breaks the ABI, but we already increased > the ABIVER for ethdev this release, I believe this is very good timing for this fix. If changing the stats API, we should increase the number of stats per queue: #define RTE_ETHDEV_QUEUE_STAT_CNTRS 16 What about 128 queues per port? 256?