2016-11-10 15:43, Alejandro Lucero: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at > 6wind.com> > wrote: > > > 2016-11-10 14:00, Alejandro Lucero: > > > From: Bert van Leeuwen <bert.vanleeuwen at netronome.com> > > > > > > A device can have more than RTE_ETHDEV_QUEUE_STAT_CNTRS queues which > > > is used inside struct rte_eth_stats. Ideally, DPDK should be built with > > > RTE_ETHDEV_QUEUE_STAT_CNTRS to the maximum number of queues a device > > > can support, 65536, as uint16_t is used for keeping those values for > > > RX and TX. But of course, having such big arrays inside struct > > rte_eth_stats > > > is not a good idea. > > > > RTE_ETHDEV_QUEUE_STAT_CNTRS come from a limitation in Intel devices. > > They have limited number of registers to store the stats per queue. > > > > > Current default value is 16, which could likely be changed to 32 or 64 > > > without too much opposition. And maybe it would be a good idea to modify > > > struct rte_eth_stats for allowing dynamically allocated arrays and maybe > > > some extra fields for keeping the array sizes. > > > > Yes > > and? what is your issue exactly? with which device? > > Please explain the idea brought by your patch. > > > > Netronome NFP devices support 128 queues and future version will support > 1024. > > A particular VF, our PMD just supports VFs, could get as much as 128. > Although that is not likely, that could be an option for some client. > > Clients want to use a DPDK coming with a distribution, so changing the > RTE_ETHDEV_QUEUE_STAT_CNTRS depending on the present devices is not an > option. > > We would be happy if RTE_ETHDEV_QUEUE_STAT_CNTRS could be set to 1024, > covering current and future requirements for our cards, but maybe having > such big arrays inside struct rte_eth_stats is something people do not want > to have. > > A solution could be to create such arrays dynamically based on the device > to get the stats from. For example, call to rte_eth_dev_configure could > have ax extra field for allocating a rte_eth_stats struct, which will be > based on nb_rx_q and nb_tx_q params already given to that function. > > Maybe the first thing to know is what people think about just incrementing > RTE_ETHDEV_QUEUE_STAT_CNTRS to 1024. > > So Thomas, what do you think about this?
I think this patch is doing something else :) I'm not sure what is better between big arrays and variable size. I think you must explain these 2 options in another thread, because I'm not sure you will have enough attention in a thread starting with "check number of queues less than RTE_ETHDEV_QUEUE_STAT_CNTRS".
