[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iLWTie6bZZR3fkuOPfVWgjmiV9er_6MPbbcM2AE13ZQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 10:33:52 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net-sysfs: display two backlog queue len separately
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:16 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the guidance. Scaling is a good way to go really. But I
> just would like to separate these two kinds of limits to watch them
> closely. More often we cannot decide to adjust accurately which one
> should be adjusted. Time squeeze may not be clear and we cannot
> randomly write a larger number into both proc files which may do harm
> to some external customers unless we can show some proof to them.
>
> Maybe I got something wrong. If adding some tracepoints for those
> limits in softnet_data is not elegant, please enlighten me :)
>
I dunno, but it really looks like you are re-discovering things that
we dealt with about 10 years ago.
I wonder why new ways of tracing stuff are needed nowadays, while ~10
years ago nothing
officially put and maintained forever in the kernel was needed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists