lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH RFC v2 1/6] ethtool: add interface to read Tx hardware timestamping statistics
Date


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 6:40 PM
> To: Rahul Rameshbabu <rrameshbabu@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Zaki, Ahmed <ahmed.zaki@intel.com>; Lobakin, Aleksander
> <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>; alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com;
> andrew@lunn.ch; corbet@lwn.net; davem@davemloft.net; dtatulea@nvidia.com;
> edumazet@google.com; gal@nvidia.com; hkallweit1@gmail.com; Keller, Jacob E
> <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>; jiri@resnulli.us; joabreu@synopsys.com;
> justinstitt@google.com; kory.maincent@bootlin.com; leon@kernel.org; linux-
> doc@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; liuhangbin@gmail.com;
> maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com; netdev@vger.kernel.org; pabeni@redhat.com;
> Greenwalt, Paul <paul.greenwalt@intel.com>; Kitszel, Przemyslaw
> <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>; rdunlap@infradead.org;
> richardcochran@gmail.com; saeed@kernel.org; tariqt@nvidia.com;
> vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev; vladimir.oltean@nxp.com; Drewek, Wojciech
> <wojciech.drewek@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/6] ethtool: add interface to read Tx hardware
> timestamping statistics
>
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:50:39 -0700 Rahul Rameshbabu wrote:
> > > Should we give some guidance to drivers which "ignore" time stamping
> > > requests if they used up all the "slots"? Even if just temporary until
> > > they are fixed? Maybe we can add after all the fields something like:
> > >
> > > For drivers which ignore further timestamping requests when there are
> > > too many in flight, the ignored requests are currently not counted by
> > > any of the statistics.
> >
> > I was actually thinking it would be better to merge them into the error
> > counter temporarily. Reason being is that in the case Intel notices that
> > their slots are full, they just drop traffic from my understanding
> > today. If the error counters increment in that situation, it helps with
> > the debug to a degree. EBUSY is an error in general.
>
> That works, too, let's recommend it (FWIW no preference whether
> in the entry for @err or somewhere separately in the kdoc).

We don't drop traffic, we send the packets just fine.. We just never report a timestamp for them, since we don't program the hardware to capture that timestamp.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 15:49    [W:0.240 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site