linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] eth: fbnic: Add PCIe hardware statistics

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zyq9D1WCvuykHsUv@LQ3V64L9R2>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 16:49:19 -0800
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
To: Sanman Pradhan <sanman.p211993@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, alexanderduyck@...com, kuba@...nel.org,
	kernel-team@...a.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org, corbet@....net,
	mohsin.bashr@...il.com, sanmanpradhan@...a.com,
	andrew+netdev@...n.ch, vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev, sdf@...ichev.me,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] eth: fbnic: Add PCIe hardware statistics

On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 04:26:25PM -0800, Sanman Pradhan wrote:
> Add PCIe hardware statistics support to the fbnic driver. These stats
> provide insight into PCIe transaction performance and error conditions,
> including, read/write and completion TLP counts and DWORD counts and
> debug counters for tag, completion credit and NP credit exhaustion

The second sentence is long and doesn't have a period at the end of
it. Maybe break it up a bit into a set of shorter sentences or a
list or something like that?

> The stats are exposed via ethtool and can be used to monitor PCIe
> performance and debug PCIe issues.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sanman Pradhan <sanman.p211993@...il.com>
> ---
>  .../device_drivers/ethernet/meta/fbnic.rst    |  27 +++++
>  drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic.h       |   1 +
>  drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_csr.h   |  39 ++++++
>  .../net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_ethtool.c   |  77 +++++++++++-
>  .../net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_hw_stats.c  | 114 ++++++++++++++++++
>  .../net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_hw_stats.h  |  17 +++
>  .../net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_netdev.c    |   3 +
>  drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_pci.c   |   2 +
>  8 files changed, 278 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

[...]

> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_ethtool.c
> index 1117d5a32867..9f590a42a9df 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_ethtool.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_ethtool.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,39 @@

[...]

> +
> +#define FBNIC_HW_FIXED_STATS_LEN ARRAY_SIZE(fbnic_gstrings_hw_stats)
> +#define FBNIC_HW_STATS_LEN \
> +	(FBNIC_HW_FIXED_STATS_LEN)

Does the above need to be on a separate line? Might be able to fit
in under 80 chars?

>  static int
>  fbnic_get_ts_info(struct net_device *netdev,
>  		  struct kernel_ethtool_ts_info *tsinfo)
> @@ -51,6 +84,43 @@ static void fbnic_set_counter(u64 *stat, struct fbnic_stat_counter *counter)
>  		*stat = counter->value;
>  }
> 
> +static void fbnic_get_strings(struct net_device *dev, u32 sset, u8 *data)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	switch (sset) {
> +	case ETH_SS_STATS:
> +		for (i = 0; i < FBNIC_HW_STATS_LEN; i++)
> +			ethtool_puts(&data, fbnic_gstrings_hw_stats[i].string);
> +		break;
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static int fbnic_get_sset_count(struct net_device *dev, int sset)
> +{
> +	switch (sset) {
> +	case ETH_SS_STATS:
> +		return FBNIC_HW_STATS_LEN;
> +	default:
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void fbnic_get_ethtool_stats(struct net_device *dev,
> +				    struct ethtool_stats *stats, u64 *data)
> +{
> +	struct fbnic_net *fbn = netdev_priv(dev);
> +	const struct fbnic_stat *stat;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	fbnic_get_hw_stats(fbn->fbd);
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < FBNIC_HW_STATS_LEN; i++) {
> +		stat = &fbnic_gstrings_hw_stats[i];
> +		data[i] = *(u64 *)((u8 *)&fbn->fbd->hw_stats + stat->offset);
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  static void
>  fbnic_get_eth_mac_stats(struct net_device *netdev,
>  			struct ethtool_eth_mac_stats *eth_mac_stats)
> @@ -117,10 +187,13 @@ static void fbnic_get_ts_stats(struct net_device *netdev,
>  }
> 
>  static const struct ethtool_ops fbnic_ethtool_ops = {
> -	.get_drvinfo		= fbnic_get_drvinfo,
>  	.get_ts_info		= fbnic_get_ts_info,
> -	.get_ts_stats		= fbnic_get_ts_stats,
> +	.get_drvinfo		= fbnic_get_drvinfo,
> +	.get_strings		= fbnic_get_strings,
> +	.get_sset_count		= fbnic_get_sset_count,
> +	.get_ethtool_stats	= fbnic_get_ethtool_stats,
>  	.get_eth_mac_stats	= fbnic_get_eth_mac_stats,
> +	.get_ts_stats		= fbnic_get_ts_stats,
>  };

Seems like the two deleted lines were just re-ordered but otherwise
unchanged?

I don't think it's any reason to hold this back, but limiting
changes like that in the future is probably a good idea because it
makes the diff smaller and easier to review.