On 31/12/13 3:14 AM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 01:28:04 -0500
From: Brad Smith <b...@comstyle.com>
Don't count RX overruns and missed packets as inputs errors. They're
expected to increment when using MCLGETI.
OK?
These may be "expected", but they're still packets that were not
received. And it is useful to know about these, for example when
debugging TCP performance issues.
Well do we want to keep just the missed packets or both? Part of the
diff was inspired by this commit when I was looking at what counters
were incrementing..
for bge(4)..
revision 1.334
date: 2013/06/06 00:05:30; author: dlg; state: Exp; lines: +2 -4;
dont count rx ring overruns as input errors. with MCLGETI controlling the
ring we expect to run out of rx descriptors as a matter of course, its not
an error.
ok mikeb@
Index: if_em.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/pci/if_em.c,v
retrieving revision 1.275
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.275 if_em.c
--- if_em.c 28 Dec 2013 03:34:54 -0000 1.275
+++ if_em.c 31 Dec 2013 06:03:55 -0000
@@ -3246,9 +3248,9 @@ em_update_stats_counters(struct em_softc
sc->stats.rxerrc +
sc->stats.crcerrs +
sc->stats.algnerrc +
- sc->stats.ruc + sc->stats.roc +
- sc->stats.mpc + sc->stats.cexterr +
- sc->rx_overruns;
+ sc->stats.ruc +
+ sc->stats.roc +
+ sc->stats.cexterr;
/* Tx Errors */
ifp->if_oerrors = sc->stats.ecol + sc->stats.latecol +
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
