Sorry for late reply
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 8:43 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; sta...@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/i40e: fix packet count for PF
>
> On 8/20/2017 9:05 PM, Qi Zhang wrote:
> > Previously, for PF statistics we use VSI register for packet count but
> > use port's register for packet bytes, that cause inconsistent
> > situation of PF statistics when some VF is active, since it will
> > cover VF's packet bytes but not packet count.
> > The patch will take port register for PF packet count back, but still
> > exclude main vsi's discard packet count.
> > Just like pervious fix, its still not perfect,(since RX packet number
> > is over counted when there is VF discard packet) but seems it make the
> > overall better).
>
> What does Linux do for stats calculation?
> I believe it is good to be consistent with it.
Kernel driver is quite different on the stats calucation, I don't think this
patch is going to cover this.
It just try to fix the mismatch between rxbytes and rx_packets on PF.
But your suggestion is considerable
>
> >
> > Fixes: 9aace75fc82e ("i40e: fix statistics")
> > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c | 13 +++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
> > b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c index 5f26e24..63acbb8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
> > @@ -2664,13 +2664,14 @@ i40e_dev_stats_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> struct rte_eth_stats *stats)
> > /* call read registers - updates values, now write them to struct */
> > i40e_read_stats_registers(pf, hw);
> >
> > - stats->ipackets = pf->main_vsi->eth_stats.rx_unicast +
> > - pf->main_vsi->eth_stats.rx_multicast +
> > - pf->main_vsi->eth_stats.rx_broadcast -
> > + stats->ipackets = ns->eth.rx_unicast +
> > + ns->eth.rx_multicast +
> > + ns->eth.rx_broadcast -
> > + ns->eth.rx_discards -
> > pf->main_vsi->eth_stats.rx_discards;
>
> Both port rx_discards and PF rx_discards excluded, is this intentional?
> Won't this cause double exclusion of some rx_discards packets?
Yes, this is intentional, port rx_discard and VSI rx_discard counts on
different part of total drop packets.
>
> > - stats->opackets = pf->main_vsi->eth_stats.tx_unicast +
> > - pf->main_vsi->eth_stats.tx_multicast +
> > - pf->main_vsi->eth_stats.tx_broadcast;
> > + stats->opackets = ns->eth.tx_unicast +
> > + ns->eth.tx_multicast +
> > + ns->eth.tx_broadcast;
> > stats->ibytes = ns->eth.rx_bytes;
> > stats->obytes = ns->eth.tx_bytes;
> > stats->oerrors = ns->eth.tx_errors +
>
Regards
Qi
