Messages in this thread | | | From | Vladimir Oltean <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 1/2] net: mscc: ocelot: remove redundant stats_layout pointers | Date | Tue, 15 Nov 2022 16:08:40 +0000 |
| |
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 07:43:48PM -0800, Colin Foster wrote: > > The issue is that not all Ocelot family switches support the MAC merge > > layer. Namely, only vsc9959 does. > > > > With your removal of the ability to have a custom per-switch stats layout, > > the only remaining thing for vsc9959 to do is to add a "bool mm_supported" > > to the common struct ocelot, and all the above extra stats will only be read > > from the common code in ocelot_stats.c only if mm_supported is set to true. > > > > What do you think, is this acceptable? > > That's an interesting solution. I don't really have any strong opinions > on this one. I remember we'd had the discussion about making sure the > stats are ordered (so that bulk stat reads don't get fragmented) and that > wasn't an issue here. So I'm happy to go any route, either:
Oops, I completely forgot about this patch, which I promised I'd submit to net-next and I never did: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220816135352.1431497-7-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com/#24973682
Would you mind picking it up since you're dealing with stats ATM anyway?
> > 1. I fix up this patch and resubmit
Honestly, I don't quite remember today what I had in mind yesterday with "mm_supported" - I'm not sure how that would work. I guess it involves creating an extra struct ocelot_stat_layout array beyond ocelot_stats_layout[], which would be called ocelot_mm_stats_layout[].
What you mentioned just above with the stats ordering is going to be a problem with this approach, because we'd need to modify ocelot_prepare_stats_regions() to construct the regions based on 2 distinct struct ocelot_stat_layout arrays, depending on whether ocelot->mm_supported is set (at least that's what I believe I was saying yesterday). But if we merge the arrays if mm_supported is set, we need to merge them in a sorted way. Complicates a lot of things.
> 2. I wait until the 9959 code lands, and do some tweaks for mac merge stats
Hmm, waiting for me to do something sounds like a potentially long wait. Why do you need to make these changes exactly? To reduce the amount of stuff exposed for vsc7512, right?
> 3. Maybe we deem this patch set unnecessary and drop it, since 9959 will > start using custom stats again. > > > Or maybe a 4th route, where ocelot->stats_layout remains in tact and > felix->info->stats_layout defaults to the common stats. Only the 9959 > would have to override it?
Something like that, maybe we could have a helper that is used in ocelot_stats.c like this:
static const struct ocelot_stat_layout * ocelot_get_stats_layout(struct ocelot *ocelot) { if (ocelot->stats_layout) return ocelot->stats_layout;
return ocelot_stats_layout; // common for everyone except VSC9959 }
and we keep exposing to the world the OCELOT_COMMON_STATS macro and whatever else is needed for VSC9959 to construct its own vsc9959_stats_layout.
Or..... hmm (sorry, this is a single-pass email, not gonna delete anything previous), maybe we could implement the helper function like this:
static const struct ocelot_stat_layout ocelot_stats_layout[OCELOT_NUM_STATS] = { OCELOT_COMMON_STATS, };
static const struct ocelot_stat_layout ocelot_mm_stats_layout[OCELOT_NUM_STATS] = { OCELOT_COMMON_STATS, OCELOT_STAT(RX_ASSEMBLY_ERRS), OCELOT_STAT(RX_SMD_ERRS), OCELOT_STAT(RX_ASSEMBLY_OK), OCELOT_STAT(RX_MERGE_FRAGMENTS), OCELOT_STAT(TX_MERGE_FRAGMENTS), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_OCTETS), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_UNICAST), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_MULTICAST), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_BROADCAST), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_SHORTS), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_FRAGMENTS), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_JABBERS), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_CRC_ALIGN_ERRS), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_SYM_ERRS), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_64), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_65_127), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_128_255), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_256_511), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_512_1023), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_1024_1526), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_1527_MAX), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_PAUSE), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_CONTROL), OCELOT_STAT(RX_PMAC_LONGS), OCELOT_STAT(TX_PMAC_OCTETS), OCELOT_STAT(TX_PMAC_UNICAST), OCELOT_STAT(TX_PMAC_MULTICAST), OCELOT_STAT(TX_PMAC_BROADCAST), OCELOT_STAT(TX_PMAC_PAUSE), OCELOT_STAT(TX_PMAC_64), OCELOT_STAT(TX_PMAC_65_127), OCELOT_STAT(TX_PMAC_128_255), OCELOT_STAT(TX_PMAC_256_511), OCELOT_STAT(TX_PMAC_512_1023), OCELOT_STAT(TX_PMAC_1024_1526), OCELOT_STAT(TX_PMAC_1527_MAX), };
static const struct ocelot_stat_layout * ocelot_get_stats_layout(struct ocelot *ocelot) { if (ocelot->mm_supported) return ocelot_mm_stats_layout; // common + MM stats
return ocelot_stats_layout; // just common stats }
Then, setting mm_supported = true from vsc9959 would be enough, no need to provide its own stats layout, no need to sort/merge anything.
How does this sound?
| |