[dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/af_packet: improve Tx statistics accuracy
Musatescu, Flavia
flavia.musatescu at intel.com
Fri Oct 11 19:13:20 CEST 2019
On 10/10/2019 19:35, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:34:30 +0100
> Flavia Musatescu <flavia.musatescu at intel.com> wrote:
>
>> When sendto call fails and ENOBUFS error is being set some of the
>> packets are actually successfully transmitted. There is no available
>> count of those packets, so in order to make the statistics more
>> accurate, all the previously enqueued packets will be considered
>> successful, even though this is not entirely correct.
>>
>> Before:
>> testpmd Tx statistics:
>> TX-packets: 7529062 TX-errors: 3702150 TX-bytes: 451743720
>> pktgen Rx statistics:
>> Total Rx Pkts: 10700700
>>
>> After:
>> testpmd TX statistics:
>> TX-packets: 11510625 TX-errors: 0 TX-bytes: 690637500
>> pktgen Rx statistics:
>> Total Rx Pkts: 10974307
>>
>> Fixes: 74b7fc0a0ff1 ("net/af_packet: fix packet bytes counting")
>> Cc: ciwillia at brocade.com
>> Cc: stable at dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Flavia Musatescu <flavia.musatescu at intel.com>
>>
>> ---
>> v2:
>> * Changed the comment
>> ---
>> drivers/net/af_packet/rte_eth_af_packet.c | 8 ++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/af_packet/rte_eth_af_packet.c b/drivers/net/af_packet/rte_eth_af_packet.c
>> index 6df09f2..df281bf 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/af_packet/rte_eth_af_packet.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/af_packet/rte_eth_af_packet.c
>> @@ -244,8 +244,12 @@ eth_af_packet_tx(void *queue, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_pkts)
>> }
>>
>> /* kick-off transmits */
>> - if (sendto(pkt_q->sockfd, NULL, 0, MSG_DONTWAIT, NULL, 0) == -1) {
>> - /* error sending -- no packets transmitted */
>> + if (sendto(pkt_q->sockfd, NULL, 0, MSG_DONTWAIT, NULL, 0) == -1 &&
>> + errno != ENOBUFS) {
>> + /*
>> + * In case of a ENOBUFS error all of the enqueued packets will
>> + * be considered successful even though only some are sent.
>> + */
>> num_tx = 0;
>> num_tx_bytes = 0;
>> }
> What about EINTR or EAGAIN?
Hi Stephen,
I agree with EAGAIN error case as I was able to test this scenario and
check the statistics.
Can we get an EINTR error in case of a nonblocking operation
(MSG_DONTWAIT flag is being used)? Is this a common situation and will
the gain justify the cost of an additional check? Do you have any
suggestions for how I could test this scenario?
Thanks,
Flavia
More information about the stable
mailing list