netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] [net] softnet_data: Split time_squeeze counter to provide budget

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:25:35 +0100
From:   Patrick Talbert <ptalbert@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] [net] softnet_data: Split time_squeeze counter
 to provide budget_squeeze

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 10:37 -0500, Patrick Talbert wrote:
>> Add a 'budget_squeeze' counter to be able to differenciate between a
>> NAPI poll ending with outstanding work because of a lack of budget
>> (netdev_budget) versus ending because of a lack of time
>> (netdev_budget_usecs).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Patrick Talbert <ptalbert@...hat.com>
>
>
>> --- a/net/core/net-procfs.c
>> +++ b/net/core/net-procfs.c
>> @@ -160,11 +160,11 @@ static int softnet_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
>>  #endif
>>
>>       seq_printf(seq,
>> -                "%08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x\n",
>> +                "%08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x\n",
>>                  sd->processed, sd->dropped, sd->time_squeeze, 0,
>>                  0, 0, 0, 0, /* was fastroute */
>>                  0,   /* was cpu_collision */
>> -                sd->received_rps, flow_limit_count);
>> +                sd->received_rps, flow_limit_count, sd->budget_squeeze);
>>       return 0;
>>  }
>
> Please no more updates on /proc files. We want to deprecate them
> eventually.
>
>

Fair enough. How is the commit without the net-procfs.c change? Also,
I apologize for not knowing, but if it is preferred for such info to
no longer be exposed via procfs, where should it be instead?

Thank you,

Patrick