netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 1/3] netdev: add per-queue statistics

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7be440bb-9be5-4565-bb24-48328548e909@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:22:30 +0000
From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: amritha.nambiar@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, danielj@...dia.com, mst@...hat.com,
 michael.chan@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/3] netdev: add per-queue statistics

On 23/02/2024 04:32, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 02/22, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 16:29:08 -0800 Nambiar, Amritha wrote:
>>> Thanks, this almost has all the bits to also lookup stats for a single
>>> queue with --do stats-get with a queue id and type.
>>
>> We could without the projection. The projection (BTW not a great name,
>> couldn't come up with a better one.. split? dis-aggregation? view?
>> un-grouping?) "splits" a single object (netdev stats) across components
> 
> How about "scope" ? Device scope. Queue scope.
> 

"scope" or "view" looks better, WDYT?

>> (queues). I was wondering if at some point we may add another
>> projection, splitting a queue. And then a queue+id+projection would
>> actually have to return multiple objects. So maybe it's more consistent
>> to just not support do at all for this op, and only support dump?
>>
>> We can support filtered dump on ifindex + queue id + type, and expect
>> it to return one object for now.
>>
>> Not 100% sure so I went with the "keep it simple, we can add more later"
>> approach.