[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aSWCQQsd-_cIKucF@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 10:17:37 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc: Aleksandr Loktionov <aleksandr.loktionov@...el.com>,
Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 5/6] ice: shorten ring stat names and add
accessors
On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 12:20:45PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
> The ice Tx/Rx hotpath has a few statistics counters for tracking unexpected
> events. These values are stored as u64 but are not accumulated using the
> u64_stats API. This could result in load/tear stores on some architectures.
> Even some 64-bit architectures could have issues since the fields are not
> read or written using ACCESS_ONCE or READ_ONCE.
>
> A following change is going to refactor the stats accumulator code to use
> the u64_stats API for all of these stats, and to use u64_stats_read and
> u64_stats_inc properly to prevent load/store tears on all architectures.
>
> Using u64_stats_inc and the syncp pointer is slightly verbose and would be
> duplicated in a number of places in the Tx and Rx hot path. Add accessor
> macros for the cases where only a single stat value is touched at once. To
> keep lines short, also shorten the stats names and convert ice_txq_stats
> and ice_rxq_stats to struct_group.
>
> This will ease the transition to properly using the u64_stats API in the
> following change.
>
> Reviewed-by: Aleksandr Loktionov <aleksandr.loktionov@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
I had to read this and the next patch a few times to understand what was
going on. In the end, the key for me understanding this patch is "...
accessor macros for the cases where only a single stat value is touched at
once.". Especially the "once" bit.
In the context of the following patch I think this change makes sense.
And I appreciate that keeping lines short also makes sense. So no
objections to the direction you've taken here. But I might not have
thought to use struct_group for this myself.
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists