From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Or Gerlitz Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 8/9] nfp: add a stats handler for flower offloads Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:16:41 +0300 Message-ID: References: <1498681802-2897-1-git-send-email-simon.horman@netronome.com> <1498681802-2897-9-git-send-email-simon.horman@netronome.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: David Miller , Jakub Kicinski , Linux Netdev List , oss-drivers@netronome.com, Pieter Jansen van Vuuren To: Simon Horman Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f50.google.com ([209.85.218.50]:36642 "EHLO mail-oi0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751974AbdF2PQm (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 11:16:42 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f50.google.com with SMTP id p187so69085259oif.3 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 08:16:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1498681802-2897-9-git-send-email-simon.horman@netronome.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:30 PM, Simon Horman wrote: > From: Pieter Jansen van Vuuren > > Previously there was no way of updating flow rule stats after they > have been offloaded to hardware. This is solved by keeping track of > stats received from hardware and providing this to the TC handler > on request. > +static void > +nfp_flower_update_stats(struct nfp_app *app, struct nfp_fl_stats_frame *stats) > +{ > + struct nfp_fl_payload *nfp_flow; > + unsigned long flower_cookie; > + > + flower_cookie = be64_to_cpu(stats->stats_cookie); > + > + rcu_read_lock(); > + nfp_flow = nfp_flower_find_in_fl_table(app, flower_cookie); > + if (!nfp_flow) > + goto exit_rcu_unlock; > + > + if (nfp_flow->meta.host_ctx_id != stats->stats_con_id) > + goto exit_rcu_unlock; > + > + spin_lock(&nfp_flow->lock); > + nfp_flow->stats.pkts += be32_to_cpu(stats->pkt_count); > + nfp_flow->stats.bytes += be64_to_cpu(stats->byte_count); you're using += with the values you get form the fw, are they incremental? > + nfp_flow->stats.used = jiffies; if nothing was changed since your last reading, it's wrong to say that used == NOW > + spin_unlock(&nfp_flow->lock); if indeed you need to keep a clone of earlier calls to correctly compute the (last)used value, maybe you can get rid of the locking?