On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 2:05 AM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com> wrote:

On 1/31/2023 1:51 AM, Joshua Washington wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I tested it out, and the updates to testpmd seem to work.
>

Hi Joshua,

Thanks for testing, I will send a patch soon.

But this was testpmd issue, do you have any objection with the net/gve
patch, if not can you please record this with ack/review/tested-by tags,
so I can proceed with it.

> Before applying the second patch:
> ---------------------- Forward statistics for port 0
> ----------------------
> RX-packets: 0 RX-dropped: 0 RX-total: 0
> TX-packets: 43769238 TX-dropped: 62634 TX-total: 43831872
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------- Forward statistics for port 1
> ----------------------
> RX-packets: 0 RX-dropped: 0 RX-total: 0
> TX-packets: 43761119 TX-dropped: 70753 TX-total: 43831872
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> +++++++++++++++ Accumulated forward statistics for all
> ports+++++++++++++++
> RX-packets: 0 RX-dropped: 0 RX-total: 0
> TX-packets: 87530357 TX-dropped: 157302 TX-total: 87687659
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> 62634 + 70753 = 133387 != 157302
>
> After applying the second patch:
> ---------------------- Forward statistics for port 0
> ----------------------
> RX-packets: 0 RX-dropped: 0 RX-total: 0
> TX-packets: 12590721 TX-dropped: 36638 TX-total: 12627359
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------- Forward statistics for port 1
> ----------------------
> RX-packets: 0 RX-dropped: 0 RX-total: 0
> TX-packets: 12596255 TX-dropped: 31746 TX-total: 12628001
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> +++++++++++++++ Accumulated forward statistics for all
> ports+++++++++++++++
> RX-packets: 0 RX-dropped: 0 RX-total: 0
> TX-packets: 25186976 TX-dropped: 68384 TX-total: 25255360
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Thanks,
> Josh
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 8:22 AM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com
> <mailto:ferruh.yigit@amd.com>> wrote:
>
> On 12/19/2022 7:38 PM, Joshua Washington wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > As it turns out, this error actually propagates to the "total"
> stats as
> > well, which I assume is just calculated by adding TX-packets and
> > TX-dropped. Here are the full stats from the example that Rushil
> mentioned:
> >
> > ---------------------- Forward statistics for port 0
> > ----------------------
> > RX-packets: 2453802 RX-dropped: 0 RX-total:
> 2453802
> > TX-packets: 34266881 TX-dropped: 447034 TX-total:
> 34713915
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ---------------------- Forward statistics for port 1
> > ----------------------
> > RX-packets: 34713915 RX-dropped: 0 RX-total:
> 34713915
> > TX-packets: 2453802 TX-dropped: 0 TX-total:
> 2453802
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > +++++++++++++++ Accumulated forward statistics for all
> > ports+++++++++++++++
> > RX-packets: 37167717 RX-dropped: 0 RX-total:
> 37167717
> > TX-packets: 36720683 TX-dropped: 807630 TX-total:
> 37528313
> >
> >
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > It can be seen that the stats for the individual ports are consistent,
> > but the TX-total and TX-dropped are not consistent with the stats for
> > the individual ports, as I believe that the TX-total and RX-total
> > accumulated stats should be equal.
> >
>
> Hi Joshua, Rushil,
>
> As I checked for it, issue may be related to testpmd stats display,
>
> While displaying per port TX-dropped value, it only takes
> 'ports_stats[pt_id].tx_dropped' into account,
> but for accumulated TX-dropped results it takes both
> 'ports_stats[pt_id].tx_dropped' & 'stats.oerrors' into account.
>
> If you can reproduce it easily, can you please test with following
> change:
>
>   diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>   index 134d79a55547..49322d07d7d6 100644
>   --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>   +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>   @@ -2056,6 +2056,8 @@ fwd_stats_display(void)
>    fwd_cycles += fs->core_cycles;
>    }
>    for (i = 0; i < cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_ports; i++) {
>   + uint64_t tx_dropped = 0;
>   +
>    pt_id = fwd_ports_ids[i];
>    port = &ports[pt_id];
>
>   @@ -2077,8 +2079,9 @@ fwd_stats_display(void)
>    total_recv += stats.ipackets;
>    total_xmit += stats.opackets;
>    total_rx_dropped += stats.imissed;
>   - total_tx_dropped += ports_stats[pt_id].tx_dropped;
>   - total_tx_dropped += stats.oerrors;
>   + tx_dropped += ports_stats[pt_id].tx_dropped;
>   + tx_dropped += stats.oerrors;
>   + total_tx_dropped += tx_dropped;
>    total_rx_nombuf += stats.rx_nombuf;
>
>    printf("\n %s Forward statistics for port %-2d %s\n",
>   @@ -2105,8 +2108,8 @@ fwd_stats_display(void)
>
>    printf(" TX-packets: %-14"PRIu64" TX-dropped:
> %-14"PRIu64
>    "TX-total: %-"PRIu64"\n",
>   - stats.opackets, ports_stats[pt_id].tx_dropped,
>   - stats.opackets + ports_stats[pt_id].tx_dropped);
>   + stats.opackets, tx_dropped,
>   + stats.opackets + tx_dropped);
>
>    if (record_burst_stats) {
>    if (ports_stats[pt_id].rx_stream)
>
>
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 11:17 AM Rushil Gupta <rushilg@google.com
> <mailto:rushilg@google.com>
> > <mailto:rushilg@google.com <mailto:rushilg@google.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all
> > Josh just found out some inconsistencies in the Tx/Rx
> statistics sum
> > for all ports. Not sure if we can screenshot here but it goes like
> > this:
> > Tx-dropped for port0: 447034
> > Tx-dropped for port1: 0
> > Accumulated forward statistics for all ports: 807630
> >
> > Please note that this issue is only with Tx-dropped (not
> > Tx-packets/Tx-total).
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 8:39 AM Stephen Hemminger
> > <stephen@networkplumber.org
> <mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org>
> <mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org
> <mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 15:09:08 +0000
> > > Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com
> <mailto:ferruh.yigit@amd.com> <mailto:ferruh.yigit@amd.com
> <mailto:ferruh.yigit@amd.com>>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 11/24/2022 7:33 AM, Junfeng Guo wrote:
> > > > > Add support for dev_ops of stats_get and stats_reset.
> > > > >
> > > > > Queue stats update will be moved into xstat [1], but the
> basic
> > stats
> > > > > items may still be required. So we just keep the remaining
> > ones and
> > > > > will implement the queue stats via xstats in the coming
> release.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v22.07/
> <https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v22.07/>
> > <https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v22.07/
> <https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v22.07/>> \
> > > > > source/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst#L118
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiaoyun Li <xiaoyun.li@intel.com
> <mailto:xiaoyun.li@intel.com>
> > <mailto:xiaoyun.li@intel.com <mailto:xiaoyun.li@intel.com>>>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo@intel.com
> <mailto:junfeng.guo@intel.com>
> > <mailto:junfeng.guo@intel.com <mailto:junfeng.guo@intel.com>>>
> > > >
> > > > <...>
> > > >
> > > > > +static int
> > > > > +gve_dev_stats_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct
> > rte_eth_stats *stats)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + uint16_t i;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_tx_queues; i++) {
> > > > > + struct gve_tx_queue *txq =
> dev->data->tx_queues[i];
> > > > > + if (txq == NULL)
> > > > > + continue;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + stats->opackets += txq->packets;
> > > > > + stats->obytes += txq->bytes;
> > > > > + stats->oerrors += txq->errors;
> > > >
> > > > Hi Junfeng, Qi, Jingjing, Beilei,
> > > >
> > > > Above logic looks wrong to me, did you test it?
> > > >
> > > > If the 'gve_dev_stats_get()' called multiple times (without
> > stats reset
> > > > in between), same values will be keep added to stats.
> > > > Some hw based implementations does this, because reading
> from stats
> > > > registers automatically reset those registers but this
> shouldn't
> > be case
> > > > for this driver.
> > > >
> > > > I expect it to be something like:
> > > >
> > > > local_stats = 0
> > > > foreach queue
> > > > local_stats += queue->stats
> > > > stats = local_stats
> > >
> > > The zero of local_stats is unnecessary.
> > > The only caller of the PMD stats_get is rte_ethdev_stats_get
> > > and it zeros the stats structure before calling the PMD.
> > >
> > >
> > > int
> > > rte_eth_stats_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_stats *stats)
> > > {
> > > struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
> > >
> > > RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
> > > dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
> > >
> > > memset(stats, 0, sizeof(*stats));
> > > ...
> > > stats->rx_nombuf = dev->data->rx_mbuf_alloc_failed;
> > > return eth_err(port_id, (*dev->dev_ops->stats_get)(dev,
> > stats));
> > >
> > > If any PMD has extra memset in their stats get that could be
> removed.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Joshua Washington | Software Engineer | joshwash@google.com
> <mailto:joshwash@google.com>
> > <mailto:joshwash@google.com <mailto:joshwash@google.com>> | (414)
> 366-4423 <tel:(414)%20366-4423>
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Joshua Washington | Software Engineer | joshwash@google.com
> <mailto:joshwash@google.com> | (414) 366-4423
>