Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <37311ab0f31d719a65858de31cec7a840cf8fe40.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: traceability of wifi packet drops
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2023 20:57:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20230329110205.1202eb60@kernel.org>
References: <00659771ed54353f92027702c5bbb84702da62ce.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <20230327180950.79e064da@kernel.org>
         <abcf4b9aed8adad05841234dad103ced15f9bfb2.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <20230328155826.38e9e077@kernel.org>
         <8304ec7e430815edf3b79141c90272e36683e085.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <20230329110205.1202eb60@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2023-03-29 at 11:02 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>=20
> No, no what I was trying to say is that instead of using the upper bits
> to identify the space (with 0 being the current enum skb_drop_reason)
> we could use entries in enum skb_drop_reason. In hope that it'd make
> the fine grained subsystem reason seem more like additional information
> than a completely parallel system.

Ah! Looking at your code example ... right, so you'd see "mac80211 drop
unusable" or "mac80211 drop to monitor", and fine-grained in the higher
bits.

> But it's just a thought, all of the approaches seem acceptable.

I _think_ I like the one I prototyped this morning better, I'm not sure
I like the subsystem =3D=3D existing reason part _that_ much. It ultimately
doesn't matter much, it just feels odd that you'd be allowed to have a,
I don't know picking a random example, SKB_DROP_REASON_DUP_FRAG with a
fine-grained higher bits value?

Not that we'll ever be starved for space ...

> Quick code change perhaps illustrates it best:
>=20

Yeah, that ends up really looking very similar :-)

Then again thinking about the implementation, we'd not be able to use a
simple array for the sub-reasons, or at least that'd waste a bunch of
space, since there are already quite a few 'main' reasons and we'd
want/need to add the mac80211 ones (with sub-reason) at the end. So that
makes a big array for the sub-reasons that's very sparsely populated (*)
Extending with a high 'subsystem' like I did this morning is more
compact here.

(*) or put the sub-reasons pointer/num with the 'main' reasons into the
drop_reasons[] array but that would take the same additional space


So ... which one do _you_ like better? I think I somewhat prefer the one
with adding a high bits subsystem, but I can relatively easily rejigger
my changes from this morning to implement the semantics you had here
too.

Anyone else have an opinion? :)

johannes