MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230311151756.83302-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
 <CANn89iKWewG7JZXQ=bmab9rSXUs_P5fX-BQ792QjYuH151DV-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL+tcoAchbTk9ibrAVH-bZ-0KHJ8g3XnsQHFWiBosyNgYJtymA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANn89i+uS7-mA227g6yJfTK4ugdA82z+PLV9_74f1dBMo_OhEg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL+tcoCsQ18ae+hUwqFigerJQfhrusuOOC63Wc+ZGyGWEvSFBQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL+tcoCsQ18ae+hUwqFigerJQfhrusuOOC63Wc+ZGyGWEvSFBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 10:33:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CANn89iLWTie6bZZR3fkuOPfVWgjmiV9er_6MPbbcM2AE13ZQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net-sysfs: display two backlog queue len separately
To:     Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:16=E2=80=AFAM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.=
com> wrote:

>
> Thanks for the guidance. Scaling is a good way to go really. But I
> just would like to separate these two kinds of limits to watch them
> closely. More often we cannot decide to adjust accurately which one
> should be adjusted. Time squeeze may not be clear and we cannot
> randomly write a larger number into both proc files which may do harm
> to some external customers unless we can show some proof to them.
>
> Maybe I got something wrong. If adding some tracepoints for those
> limits in softnet_data is not elegant, please enlighten me :)
>

I dunno, but it really looks like you are re-discovering things that
we dealt with about 10 years ago.

I wonder why new ways of tracing stuff are needed nowadays, while ~10
years ago nothing
officially put and maintained forever in the kernel was needed.