On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:14:47 +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > > I see thanks for the explanation and sorry for the delayed response. > > Would it perhaps make sense to indicate the hairpin in the name? > > We had some internal discussion and we couldn't come up with the > perfect name :) > > hairpin is just an implementation detail, we don't want to exclusively > bind this counter to hairpin only flows, the problem is not with > hairpin, the actual problem is due to the use of internal RQs, for now > it only happens with "hairpin like" flows, but tomorrow it can happen > with a different scenario but same root cause (the use of internal > RQs), we want to have one counter to count internal drops due to > internal use of internal RQs. > > so how about: > dev_internal_rq_oob: Device Internal RQ out of buffer > dev_internal_out_of_res: Device Internal out of resources (more generic > ? too generic ?)
Maybe dev_internal_queue_oob? The use of 'internal' is a little unfortunate, because it may be read as RQ run out of internal buffers. Rather than special type of queue run out of buffers. But not knowing the HW I don't really have any great suggestions :( Either of the above would work as well. > Any suggestion that you provide will be more than welcome. > > > dev_out_of_buffer is quite a generic name, and there seems to be no > > doc, nor does the commit message explains it as well as you have.. > > Regarding documentation: > All mlx5 ethool counters are documented here > https://community.mellanox.com/s/article/understanding-mlx5-linux-counters-and-status-parameters > > once we decide on the name, will add the new counter to the doc. I see, thanks!
