On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 10:47:43AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: J> > J> > While you are here, let me remind you about this plan: J> > J> > J> > J> > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/2014-October/063575.html J> > J> > J> > J> > We can prototype the API to userland now, write down a utility that uses J> > J> > it, or add the functionality to an existing utility. And start with Intel J> > J> > drivers, that seem to be most interested in extra stats. J> > J> J> > J> So the importaing thing here is that if_get_counter() is still doing J> > J> per-ifnet stats. The stat you underlined above is per-queue instead. J> > J> We well need more explicitly knowledge of queues outside of drivers J> > J> and in the stack itself to support a generic framework for per-queue J> > J> stats. J> > J> > This depends on how generic we want the API to be. Of course, we can add J> > an extra argument to if_get_counter(). J> > J> > However, if we don't expect the number of queues to exceed a reasonable J> > number of 255 :), we can fit the functionality into existing API. J> > We can keep the queue number in the highest 8 bits of the ift_counter J> > parameter. J> > J> > #define IFCOUNTER_MASK 0x00ffffff J> > #define IFCOUNTER_QUEUE(c) ((c) >> 24) J> J> I'd prefer that expose queues more directly and figure out how to handle J> per-queue stats then (e.g. do we have some sort of driver-independent J> structure that each ifnet has 1 or more of that maps to a queue and has J> driver provided methods, etc. If so you could have a driver method for J> queue stats). Note that I did use if_get_counter to report the J> per-interface stats instead of adding a new sysctl.
What do you prefer: an extra argument to the if_get_counter() or a extra ifop? -- Totus tuus, Glebius. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"