[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+6hz4qdRXGgDeWWoypS=Ju0qwyVi3WrZRecUnfxAe83mSZfiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 20:56:59 +0800
From: Feng Gao <gfree.wind@...il.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>,
Vijay Pandurangan <vijayp@...ayp.ca>,
Evan Jones <ej@...njones.ca>, pabeni@...hat.com,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Feng Gao <gfree.wind@...il.com>, Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] driver: veth: Refine the statistics codes of
veth driver
It is deprecated.
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:50 PM, <fgao@...ai8.com> wrote:
> From: Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>
>
> The dropped count of veth is located in struct veth_priv, but other
> statistics like packets and bytes are in another struct pcpu_vstats.
> Now keep these three counters in the same struct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/veth.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/veth.c b/drivers/net/veth.c
> index 0520952a..3d8326f 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/veth.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/veth.c
> @@ -26,12 +26,12 @@
> struct pcpu_vstats {
> u64 packets;
> u64 bytes;
> + u64 dropped;
> struct u64_stats_sync syncp;
> };
>
> struct veth_priv {
> struct net_device __rcu *peer;
> - atomic64_t dropped;
> unsigned requested_headroom;
> };
>
> @@ -108,6 +108,8 @@ static netdev_tx_t veth_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
> struct veth_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> struct net_device *rcv;
> int length = skb->len;
> + struct pcpu_vstats *stats = this_cpu_ptr(dev->vstats);
> + int ret = NET_RX_DROP;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> rcv = rcu_dereference(priv->peer);
> @@ -116,17 +118,16 @@ static netdev_tx_t veth_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
> goto drop;
> }
>
> - if (likely(dev_forward_skb(rcv, skb) == NET_RX_SUCCESS)) {
> - struct pcpu_vstats *stats = this_cpu_ptr(dev->vstats);
> -
> - u64_stats_update_begin(&stats->syncp);
> + ret = dev_forward_skb(rcv, skb);
> +drop:
> + u64_stats_update_begin(&stats->syncp);
> + if (likely(ret == NET_RX_SUCCESS)) {
> stats->bytes += length;
> stats->packets++;
> - u64_stats_update_end(&stats->syncp);
> } else {
> -drop:
> - atomic64_inc(&priv->dropped);
> + stats->dropped++;
> }
> + u64_stats_update_end(&stats->syncp);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> return NETDEV_TX_OK;
> }
> @@ -135,27 +136,28 @@ static netdev_tx_t veth_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
> * general routines
> */
>
> -static u64 veth_stats_one(struct pcpu_vstats *result, struct net_device *dev)
> +static void veth_stats_one(struct pcpu_vstats *result, struct net_device *dev)
> {
> - struct veth_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> int cpu;
>
> result->packets = 0;
> result->bytes = 0;
> + result->dropped = 0;
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> struct pcpu_vstats *stats = per_cpu_ptr(dev->vstats, cpu);
> - u64 packets, bytes;
> + u64 packets, bytes, dropped;
> unsigned int start;
>
> do {
> start = u64_stats_fetch_begin_irq(&stats->syncp);
> packets = stats->packets;
> bytes = stats->bytes;
> + dropped = stats->dropped;
> } while (u64_stats_fetch_retry_irq(&stats->syncp, start));
> result->packets += packets;
> result->bytes += bytes;
> + result->dropped += dropped;
> }
> - return atomic64_read(&priv->dropped);
> }
>
> static struct rtnl_link_stats64 *veth_get_stats64(struct net_device *dev,
> @@ -165,16 +167,18 @@ static struct rtnl_link_stats64 *veth_get_stats64(struct net_device *dev,
> struct net_device *peer;
> struct pcpu_vstats one;
>
> - tot->tx_dropped = veth_stats_one(&one, dev);
> + veth_stats_one(&one, dev);
> tot->tx_bytes = one.bytes;
> tot->tx_packets = one.packets;
> + tot->tx_dropped = one.dropped;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> peer = rcu_dereference(priv->peer);
> if (peer) {
> - tot->rx_dropped = veth_stats_one(&one, peer);
> + veth_stats_one(&one, dev);
I find there is one issue. It should be peer, not dev.
> tot->rx_bytes = one.bytes;
> tot->rx_packets = one.packets;
> + tot->rx_dropped = one.dropped;
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> --
> 1.9.1
>
>
I find this patch contains one error, so please ignore it.
Regards
Feng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists