From: <P...@dr...> - 2005-07-26 08:36:53
|
Jesse Brandeburg wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, P...@dr... wrote: >=20 >> In 2.6.12 this changed to: >> >> packets =3D gprc >> dropped =3D mpc >> fifo =3D mpc >> missed =3D mpc >> >> I think there still is a problem. Notice that /proc/net/dev >> reports rx_dropped + rx_missed_errors for the drop column, >> and so will be double counting drops currently. >> Therefore I think we should be doing: >> >> packets =3D gprc >> dropped =3D 0 >> fifo =3D rnbc >> missed =3D mpc >=20 >=20 > Double counting drops may be an issue, and I believe we should make tha= t=20 > change. great. > but I don't think its the right thing to report rnbc in fifo=20 > errors (there was actually no error). >=20 >> I'm putting rnbc in fifo as it's not accumulated into >> anything else in the kernel. Also it's good to have >> it reported as one can see when there is pressure on >> the e1000 driver buffer. This is useful for tuning its size >> to protect against drops and latency. >=20 >=20 > Whenever I want the RNBC numbers I simply look into ethtool -S eth0, an= d=20 > that allows me to tune. I see no reason to "reuse" the fifo errors sta= t=20 > with misleading data. Fair enough if rnbc is actually reported. ethtool -S doesn't report it with my driver, but I see this stat has been added to the latest driver at least. So I agree on both points. thanks! --=20 P=E1draig Brady - http://www.pixelbeat.org -- |