[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] net/bnxt: fix extended port counter statistics

[David Marchand]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 9:54 AM Santoshkumar Karanappa Rastapur
<santosh.rastapur at broadcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:09 PM Somnath Kotur <somnath.kotur at broadcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> +Santosh
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:52 PM David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 7:05 AM Somnath Kotur
>>> <somnath.kotur at broadcom.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > From: Santoshkumar Karanappa Rastapur <santosh.rastapur at broadcom.com>
>>> >
>>> > We were trying to fill in more rx extended stats than the size allocated
>>> > for stats causing segfault. Fixed this by adding an explicit check.
>>> > Rearranged the code to return statistic values in xstats_get as per the
>>> > names returned in xstats_get_names.
>>> >
>>> > Fixes: f55e12f33416 ("net/bnxt: support extended port counters")
>>> >
>>> > Signed-off-by: Rahul Gupta <rahul.gupta at broadcom.com>
>>> > Signed-off-by: Santoshkumar Karanappa Rastapur <santosh.rastapur at broadcom.com>
>>> > Signed-off-by: Somnath Kotur <somnath.kotur at broadcom.com>
>>> > ---
>>> >  drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c | 24 ++++++++++++++----------
>>> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>> >
>>> > diff --git a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c
>>> > index 4e74f8a..69ac2dd 100644
>>> > --- a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c
>>> > +++ b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> > @@ -463,22 +467,22 @@ int bnxt_dev_xstats_get_op(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev,
>>> >         xstats[count].value = rte_le_to_cpu_64(tx_drop_pkts);
>>> >         count++;
>>> >
>>> > -       for (i = 0; i < tx_port_stats_ext_cnt; i++) {
>>> > -               uint64_t *tx_stats_ext = (uint64_t *)bp->hw_tx_port_stats_ext;
>>> > +       for (i = 0; i < rx_port_stats_ext_cnt; i++) {
>>> > +               uint64_t *rx_stats_ext = (uint64_t *)bp->hw_rx_port_stats_ext;
>>> >
>>> >                 xstats[count].value = rte_le_to_cpu_64
>>> > -                                       (*(uint64_t *)((char *)tx_stats_ext +
>>> > -                                        bnxt_tx_ext_stats_strings[i].offset));
>>> > +                                       (*(uint64_t *)((char *)rx_stats_ext +
>>> > +                                        bnxt_rx_ext_stats_strings[i].offset));
>>> >
>>> >                 count++;
>>> >         }
>>> >
>>> > -       for (i = 0; i < rx_port_stats_ext_cnt; i++) {
>>> > -               uint64_t *rx_stats_ext = (uint64_t *)bp->hw_rx_port_stats_ext;
>>> > +       for (i = 0; i < tx_port_stats_ext_cnt; i++) {
>>> > +               uint64_t *tx_stats_ext = (uint64_t *)bp->hw_tx_port_stats_ext;
>>> >
>>> >                 xstats[count].value = rte_le_to_cpu_64
>>> > -                                       (*(uint64_t *)((char *)rx_stats_ext +
>>> > -                                        bnxt_rx_ext_stats_strings[i].offset));
>>> > +                                       (*(uint64_t *)((char *)tx_stats_ext +
>>> > +                                        bnxt_tx_ext_stats_strings[i].offset));
>>> >
>>> >                 count++;
>>> >         }
>>> > --
>>> > 1.8.3.1
>>> >
>>>
>>> This whole hunk just adds some noise, right? or is there anything fixed in it?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Marchand
>
>
>
> In bnxt_dev_xstats_get_names_op, we were filling statistics names in xstats_names in this order.
>
>                 bnxt_rx_stats_strings
>
>                 bnxt_tx_stats_strings
>
>                 bnxt_rx_ext_stats_strings
>
>                 bnxt_tx_ext_stats_strings
>
>
>
> Where as in bnxt_dev_xstats_get_op, we were returning stats values in xstats in this order.
>
>                 bnxt_rx_stats_strings
>
>                 bnxt_tx_stats_strings
>
>                 bnxt_tx_ext_stats_strings
>
>                 bnxt_rx_ext_stats_strings
>
>
>
> We were ending up displaying extended Tx stats values against extended Rx stats names and vice versa.
>
> This above code fixes this order.

Erf, I must have read your commitlog too quickly, or you could have
split it in two patches, anyway understood.


-- 
David Marchand