netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/9] eth: bnxt: gather and report HW-GRO stats

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: <20260205162417.3e735880@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:24:17 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org,
 shuah@...nel.org, willemb@...gle.com, petrm@...dia.com,
 donald.hunter@...il.com, pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/9] eth: bnxt: gather and report HW-GRO stats

On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 14:44:53 -0800 Michael Chan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 2:07 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Count and report HW-GRO stats as seen by the kernel.
> > The device stats for GRO seem to not reflect the reality,
> > perhaps they count sessions which did not actually result
> > in any aggregation.  
> 
> Yes, the HW count includes single packets without additional
> aggregations.  In the driver, when we see only 1 segment, we treat it
> as a non GRO packet.  That's likely the discrepancy you're seeing.
> 
> Also, for completeness, should we count LRO packets as well?

Not in this counter:

      -
        name: rx-hw-gro-wire-packets
        doc: |
          Number of packets that were coalesced to bigger packetss with the
          HW-GRO netdevice feature. LRO-coalesced packets are not counted.

I don't think we have a counter defined for LRO, yet.

> > @@ -1814,6 +1815,11 @@ static inline struct sk_buff *bnxt_gro_skb(struct bnxt *bp,
> >         if (segs == 1)
> >                 return skb;
> >
> > +       if (bp->dev->features & NETIF_F_GRO_HW) {  
> 
> If we enter this function, NETIF_F_GRO_HW should always be true.

Ah, I see it now.. will drop the condition.