[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/vhost: add pmd xstats

Yuanhan Liu yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com
Wed Sep 14 08:20:21 CEST 2016


On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 04:15:27PM +0800, Zhiyong Yang wrote:
> +struct vhost_xstats {
> +	uint64_t stat[16];
> +};
> +
>  struct vhost_queue {
>  	int vid;
>  	rte_atomic32_t allow_queuing;
> @@ -85,7 +89,8 @@ struct vhost_queue {
>  	uint64_t missed_pkts;
>  	uint64_t rx_bytes;
>  	uint64_t tx_bytes;

I'd suggest to put those statistic counters to vhost_stats struct,
which could simplify the xstats_reset code a bit.

And please do it in two patches, one to introduce vhost_stats, another
one to add xstats.

> -};
> +	struct vhost_xstats xstats;
> +	};

A format issue here.

>  
>  struct pmd_internal {
>  	char *dev_name;
> @@ -127,6 +132,274 @@ struct rte_vhost_vring_state {
>  
>  static struct rte_vhost_vring_state *vring_states[RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS];
>  
> +enum rte_vhostqueue_rxtx {

Don't use "rte_" prefix for internal function, vars, etc. "rte_" prefix is
reserved for those that will be exported for public use.

> +	RTE_VHOSTQUEUE_RX = 0,
> +	RTE_VHOSTQUEUE_TX = 1
> +};
> +
> +#define RTE_ETH_VHOST_XSTATS_NAME_SIZE 64

ditto.

> +
> +struct rte_vhost_xstats_name_off {

ditto.

> +	char name[RTE_ETH_VHOST_XSTATS_NAME_SIZE];
> +	uint64_t offset;
> +};
> +
> +/* [rt]_qX_ is prepended to the name string here */
> +static void
> +vhost_dev_xstats_reset(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> +{
> +	struct vhost_queue *vqrx = NULL;
> +	struct vhost_queue *vqtx = NULL;
> +	unsigned int i = 0;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_rx_queues; i++) {
> +		if (!dev->data->rx_queues[i])
> +			continue;
> +		vqrx = (struct vhost_queue *)dev->data->rx_queues[i];

Unnecessary cast.

> +		vqrx->rx_pkts = 0;
> +		vqrx->rx_bytes = 0;
> +		vqrx->missed_pkts = 0;
> +		memset(&vqrx->xstats, 0, sizeof(vqrx->xstats));
> +	}
> +	for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_tx_queues; i++) {
> +		if (!dev->data->tx_queues[i])
> +			continue;
> +		vqtx = (struct vhost_queue *)dev->data->tx_queues[i];
> +		vqtx->tx_pkts = 0;
> +		vqtx->tx_bytes = 0;
> +		vqtx->missed_pkts = 0;
> +		memset(&vqtx->xstats, 0, sizeof(vqtx->xstats));
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +vhost_dev_xstats_get_names(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> +			   struct rte_eth_xstat_name *xstats_names,
> +			   __rte_unused unsigned int limit)

The typical way is to put __rte_unused after the key word.

> +{
> +	unsigned int i = 0;
> +	unsigned int t = 0;
> +	int count = 0;
> +	int nstats = dev->data->nb_rx_queues * VHOST_NB_RXQ_XSTATS
> +			+ dev->data->nb_tx_queues * VHOST_NB_TXQ_XSTATS;
> +
> +	if (xstats_names) {

I know you are following virtio pmd style, but you don't have to. I'd
suggest to return early for (!xstats_names) case, then we could save
one indention level for following code block.

> +		for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_rx_queues; i++) {
> +			struct vhost_queue *rxvq = dev->data->rx_queues[i];
> +
> +			if (!rxvq)
> +				continue;
> +			for (t = 0; t < VHOST_NB_RXQ_XSTATS; t++) {
> +				snprintf(xstats_names[count].name,
> +					 sizeof(xstats_names[count].name),
> +					 "rx_q%u_%s", i,
> +					 rte_vhost_rxq_stat_strings[t].name);
> +				count++;
> +			}
> +		}
> +		for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_tx_queues; i++) {
> +			struct vhost_queue *txvq = dev->data->tx_queues[i];
> +
> +			if (!txvq)
> +				continue;
> +			for (t = 0; t < VHOST_NB_TXQ_XSTATS; t++) {
> +				snprintf(xstats_names[count].name,
> +					 sizeof(xstats_names[count].name),
> +					 "tx_q%u_%s", i,
> +					 rte_vhost_txq_stat_strings[t].name);
> +				count++;
> +			}
> +		}
> +		return count;
> +	}
> +	return nstats;
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +vhost_dev_xstats_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_eth_xstat *xstats,
> +		     unsigned int n)
> +{
> +	unsigned int i;
> +	unsigned int t;
> +	unsigned int count = 0;
> +
> +	unsigned int nxstats = dev->data->nb_rx_queues * VHOST_NB_RXQ_XSTATS
> +				+ dev->data->nb_tx_queues * VHOST_NB_TXQ_XSTATS;
> +
> +	if (n < nxstats)
> +		return nxstats;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_rx_queues; i++) {
> +		struct vhost_queue *rxvq =
> +			(struct vhost_queue *)dev->data->rx_queues[i];

Unnecessary cast.

> +
> +		if (!rxvq)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		for (t = 0; t < VHOST_NB_RXQ_XSTATS; t++) {
> +			xstats[count].value = *(uint64_t *)(((char *)rxvq)
> +				+ rte_vhost_rxq_stat_strings[t].offset);
> +			count++;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_tx_queues; i++) {
> +		struct vhost_queue *txvq =
> +			(struct vhost_queue *)dev->data->tx_queues[i];
> +
> +		if (!txvq)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		for (t = 0; t < VHOST_NB_TXQ_XSTATS; t++) {
> +			xstats[count].value = *(uint64_t *)(((char *)txvq)
> +				+ rte_vhost_txq_stat_strings[t].offset);
> +			count++;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return count;
> +}
> +
> +static void
> +vhost_update_packet_xstats(struct vhost_queue *vq,
> +			   struct rte_mbuf **bufs,
> +			   uint16_t nb_rxtx,
> +			   uint16_t nb_bufs,
> +			   enum rte_vhostqueue_rxtx vqueue_rxtx)
> +{
> +	uint32_t pkt_len = 0;
> +	uint64_t i = 0;
> +	uint64_t index;
> +	struct ether_addr *ea = NULL;
> +	struct vhost_xstats *xstats_update = &vq->xstats;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < nb_rxtx ; i++) {
> +		pkt_len = bufs[i]->pkt_len;
> +		if (pkt_len == 64) {
> +			xstats_update->stat[1]++;
> +
Unnecessary blank line.

> +		} else if (pkt_len > 64 && pkt_len < 1024) {
> +			index = (sizeof(pkt_len) * 8)
> +				- __builtin_clz(pkt_len) - 5;
> +			xstats_update->stat[index]++;
> +		} else {
> +			if (pkt_len < 64)
> +				xstats_update->stat[0]++;
> +			else if (pkt_len <= 1522)
> +				xstats_update->stat[6]++;
> +			else if (pkt_len > 1522)
> +				xstats_update->stat[7]++;
> +		}
> +
> +		ea = rte_pktmbuf_mtod(bufs[i], struct ether_addr *);
> +		if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ea)) {
> +			if (is_broadcast_ether_addr(ea))
> +				/* broadcast++; */
> +				xstats_update->stat[8]++;
> +			else
> +				/* multicast++; */
> +				xstats_update->stat[9]++;

The comment could be avoided if you define a field in vhost_stats
struct like "broadcast" or "multicast". I don't object the way Harry
proposed tough, to use enum to access the stat array.

> +		}
> +	}
> +	/* non-multi/broadcast, multi/broadcast, including those
> +	 * that were discarded or not sent.

Hmmm, I don't follow it. You may want to reword it.

> from rfc2863

Which section and which page?

	--yliu


More information about the dev mailing list