netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net/mlnx5: Use generic code for page

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]

Message-ID: <20250306131620.LvXx2kNB@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:16:20 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
Cc: linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/mlnx5: Use generic code for page_pool
 statistics.

On 2025-03-06 13:10:12 [+0200], Tariq Toukan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/03/2025 11:56, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2025-03-06 11:50:27 [+0200], Tariq Toukan wrote:
> > > On 06/03/2025 10:32, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > Could I keep it as-is for now with the removal of the counter from the
> > > > RQ since we don't have the per-queue/ ring API for it now?
> > > 
> > > I'm fine with transition to generic APIs, as long as we get no regression.
> > > We must keep the per-ring counters exposed.
> > 
> > I don't see a regression.
> > Could you please show me how per-ring counters for page_pool_stats are
> > exposed at the moment? Maybe I am missing something important.
> > 
> 
> What do you see in your ethtool -S?

Now, after comparing it again I noticed that there is
|  rx_pp_alloc_fast: 27783
|  rx0_pp_alloc_fast: 441
|  rx1_pp_alloc_fast: 441

which I didn't noticed earlier. I didn't rx0,1,… for pp_alloc_fast.
Thanks.

Sebastian