[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210928115135.GG964074@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:51:35 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Mark Zhang <markzhang@...dia.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Aharon Landau <aharonl@...dia.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...nelisnetworks.com>,
Gal Pressman <galpress@...zon.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Maor Gottlieb <maorg@...dia.com>,
Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...nelisnetworks.com>,
Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ismail@...el.com>,
Naresh Kumar PBS <nareshkumar.pbs@...adcom.com>,
Neta Ostrovsky <netao@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Potnuri Bharat Teja <bharat@...lsio.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@...adcom.com>,
Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>,
Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next v1 05/11] RDMA/counter: Add optional counter
support
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 05:03:24PM +0800, Mark Zhang wrote:
> On 9/28/2021 1:03 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 02:07:24AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > +int rdma_counter_modify(struct ib_device *dev, u32 port, int index, bool enable)
> > > +{
> > > + struct rdma_hw_stats *stats;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (!dev->ops.modify_hw_stat)
> > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > +
> > > + stats = ib_get_hw_stats_port(dev, port);
> > > + if (!stats)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + mutex_lock(&stats->lock);
> > > + ret = dev->ops.modify_hw_stat(dev, port, index, enable);
> > > + if (!ret)
> > > + enable ? clear_bit(index, stats->is_disabled) :
> > > + set_bit(index, stats->is_disabled);
> >
> > This is not a kernel coding style write out the if, use success
> > oriented flow
> >
> > Also, shouldn't this logic protect the driver from being called on
> > non-optional counters?
>
> We leave it to driver, driver would return failure if modify is not
> supported. Is it good?
I think the core code should do it
> > > for (i = 0; i < data->stats->num_counters; i++) {
> > > - attr = &data->attrs[i];
> > > + if (data->stats->descs[i].flags & IB_STAT_FLAG_OPTIONAL)
> > > + continue;
> > > + attr = &data->attrs[pos];
> > > sysfs_attr_init(&attr->attr.attr);
> > > attr->attr.attr.name = data->stats->descs[i].name;
> > > attr->attr.attr.mode = 0444;
> > > attr->attr.show = hw_stat_device_show;
> > > attr->show = show_hw_stats;
> > > - data->group.attrs[i] = &attr->attr.attr;
> > > + data->group.attrs[pos] = &attr->attr.attr;
> > > + pos++;
> > > }
> >
> > This isn't OK, the hw_stat_device_show() computes the stat index like
> > this:
> >
> > return stat_attr->show(ibdev, ibdev->hw_stats_data->stats,
> > stat_attr - ibdev->hw_stats_data->attrs, 0, buf);
> >
> > Which assumes the stats are packed contiguously. This only works
> > because mlx5 is always putting the optional stats at the end.
>
> Yes you are right, thanks. Maybe we can add an "index" field in struct
> hw_stats_device/port_attribute, then set it in setup and use it in show.
You could just add a WARN_ON check that optional stats are at the end
I suppose
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists