[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL+tcoCitx8045qWr1E-yudvEkCndDMBJT+OtqqjbdEPv7EXhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 23:37:31 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org,
john.fastabend@...il.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
simon.horman@...igine.com, sinquersw@...il.com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 1/2] net-sysfs: display two backlog queue len separately
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:15 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 6:14 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> >
> > Sometimes we need to know which one of backlog queue can be exactly
> > long enough to cause some latency when debugging this part is needed.
> > Thus, we can then separate the display of both.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
> > ---
> > v3: drop the comment suggested by Simon
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230314030532.9238-2-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com/
> >
> > v2: keep the total len of backlog queues untouched as Eric said
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230311151756.83302-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com/
> > ---
> > net/core/net-procfs.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/net-procfs.c b/net/core/net-procfs.c
> > index 1ec23bf8b05c..8056f39da8a1 100644
> > --- a/net/core/net-procfs.c
> > +++ b/net/core/net-procfs.c
> > @@ -115,10 +115,19 @@ static int dev_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static u32 softnet_input_pkt_queue_len(struct softnet_data *sd)
> > +{
> > + return skb_queue_len_lockless(&sd->input_pkt_queue);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static u32 softnet_process_queue_len(struct softnet_data *sd)
> > +{
> > + return skb_queue_len_lockless(&sd->process_queue);
> > +}
> > +
> > static u32 softnet_backlog_len(struct softnet_data *sd)
> > {
> > - return skb_queue_len_lockless(&sd->input_pkt_queue) +
> > - skb_queue_len_lockless(&sd->process_queue);
> > + return softnet_input_pkt_queue_len(sd) + softnet_process_queue_len(sd);
> > }
> >
> > static struct softnet_data *softnet_get_online(loff_t *pos)
> > @@ -169,12 +178,14 @@ static int softnet_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
> > * mapping the data a specific CPU
> > */
> > seq_printf(seq,
> > - "%08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x %08x\n",
> > + "%08x %08x %08x %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,
> > - softnet_backlog_len(sd), (int)seq->index);
> > + softnet_backlog_len(sd), (int)seq->index,
> > + softnet_input_pkt_queue_len(sd), softnet_process_queue_len(sd));
> > return 0;
>
>
[...]
> It is customary to wait ~24 hours between each version, so that
> everybody gets a chance to comment,
> and to avoid polluting mailing lists with too many messages/day.
Thanks for your reminder.
>
> (I see you are including lkml@, which seems unnecessary for this kind of patch)
Yes, I alway do the get_maintainers.pl to check before I submit. So
I'll remove the lkml@.
>
> Please address the feedback I gave for v2.
Sure :)
Thanks,
Jason
>
> Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists