On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:53:54PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > A few things here: > IIRC we don't announce individual hardware drops, drivers record them in > internal structures, and they are retrieved on demand via ethtool calls, so > you > will either need to include some polling (probably not a very performant > idea), > or some sort of flagging mechanism to indicate that on the next message sent > to > user space you should go retrieve hw stats from a given interface. I > certainly > wouldn't mind seeing this happen, but its more work than just adding a new > netlink message.
Neil, The idea of this series is to pass the dropped packets themselves to user space along with metadata, such as the drop reason and the ingress port. In the future more metadata could be added thanks to the extensible nature of netlink. In v1 these packets were notified to user space as devlink events and my plan for v2 is to send them as drop_monitor events, given it's an existing generic netlink channel used to monitor SW drops. This will allow users to listen on one netlink channel to diagnose potential problems in either SW or HW (and hopefully XDP in the future). Please note that the packets I'm talking about are packets users currently do not see. They are dropped - potentially silently - by the underlying device, thereby making it hard to debug whatever issues you might be experiencing in your network. The control path that determines if these packets are even sent to the CPU from the HW needs to remain in devlink for the reasons I outlined in my previous reply. However, the monitoring of these drops will be over drop_monitor. This is similar to what we are currently doing with tc-sample, where the control path that triggers the sampling and determines the sampling rate and truncation is done over rtnetlink (tc), but the sampled packets are notified over the generic netlink psample channel. To make it more real, you can check the example of the dissected devlink message that notifies the drop of a packet due to a multicast source MAC: https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=156248736710238&w=2 I will obviously have to create another Wireshark dissector for drop_monitor in order to get the same information. > Thats an interesting idea, but dropwatch certainly isn't currently setup for > that kind of messaging. It may be worth creating a v2 of the netlink protocol > and really thinking out what you want to communicate. I don't think we need a v2 of the netlink protocol. My current plan is to extend the existing protocol with: New message type (e.g., NET_DM_CMD_HW_ALERT), new multicast group and a set of attributes to encode the information that is currently encoded in the example message I pasted above. Thanks
