[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200218.154828.858448801341482999.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:48:28 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: daniel@...earbox.net
Cc: toke@...hat.com, kuba@...nel.org, lorenzo@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org,
lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com, andrew@...n.ch, brouer@...hat.com,
dsahern@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] net: mvneta: align xdp stats naming scheme to
mlx5 driver
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:19:36 +0100
> On 2/18/20 11:23 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:
>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 01:14:29 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>>>> Introduce "rx" prefix in the name scheme for xdp counters
>>>> on rx path.
>>>> Differentiate between XDP_TX and ndo_xdp_xmit counters
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
>>>
>>> Sorry for coming in late.
>>>
>>> I thought the ability to attach a BPF program to a fexit of another
>>> BPF
>>> program will put an end to these unnecessary statistics. IOW I
>>> maintain
>>> my position that there should be no ethtool stats for XDP.
>>>
>>> As discussed before real life BPF progs will maintain their own stats
>>> at the granularity of their choosing, so we're just wasting datapath
>>> cycles.
>
> +1
Bugs in bpf programs leading to lack of fundamental statistics.
I think that is absolutely the wrong tradeoff.
And if performance is a concern, we can have a knob to turn off
the xdp counter bumps. This is something I totally support.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists