On 9/15/2017 11:33 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> 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
Method can be different, but numbers should be same :)
Not for this patch, bur for long term, I think having exact stats
numbers as Linux should be the target, if this is not the case already.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>
