From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Fri Oct 23 01:55:46 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0615438A2D for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 01:55:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Received: from mail-oi1-f175.google.com (mail-oi1-f175.google.com [209.85.167.175]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CHS4K631cz4kHx for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 01:55:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Received: by mail-oi1-f175.google.com with SMTP id w191so161542oif.2 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:55:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nnYo/wgB6wYN0i9Loe2+vGCwUC9xKnlT6ETPbafPT9s=; b=XkTtDrKxOpIux3Rw+n9aoCbA5GFQYMGiFMAWMGfFEX8JiKoGAsetewmdnjPzWp7ukJ ew8LvZtbZXENfAr1vZZZh6vkdk91G+mlHGe5mhcH48vDXEXvnF2DfRLCxDkMh14bXiwl dS1mM6HeMS9H2IfoBKpIY9SVPE4KX1OqFVi8PQF6pIHBqh92HuL3KDdNeN7uKt/oIztM Q7sBFzyNcEn+edy7rowZBJwPViXDP/AX1/LSNByZ73xUEljXs2HN9StEcv/VuArVGNuX 7NRPErevF1DAJ29UyWfxKyu2numyYjlbT80OYilGCEGOIdOeieluT/GACe82tlZNSjbo 9Odw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530648h/vE2/K7jeWiQg0NTq7+qcLySab8O1v2/cD94UWM82Uath 2UwiPUJW69myNqKaqE283/7nOhZSTss0cCZf4ws= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzHDw4BJ8wyfawIVESVLvWPX8x5JAGxT33skHnTi3r6B1X3uvZh4iADI6FbQH1OfLIjZI58qMIvHiO8/rwp7ZM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:8c:: with SMTP id s12mr62278oic.55.1603418144621; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:55:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alan Somers Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 19:55:33 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Always-0 NFS statistics To: Rick Macklem Cc: freebsd-fs X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4CHS4K631cz4kHx X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of asomers@gmail.com designates 209.85.167.175 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=asomers@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.54 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[asomers]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17:c]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-fs@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.28)[0.283]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.88)[-0.878]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[209.85.167.175:from]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.94)[-0.943]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[asomers@freebsd.org,asomers@gmail.com]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.85.167.175:from]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[asomers@freebsd.org,asomers@gmail.com]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-fs]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.33 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 01:55:46 -0000 On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 7:46 PM Rick Macklem wrote: > Alan Somers wrote: > >It looks to me like three of the server statistics published by nfsstat > are > >always 0. At least, cscope can't find any location in the kernel that > sets > >these variables. Are they legitimately always zero in FreeBSD's > >implementation of NFS, or are they reserved for future features, or is > this > >a mistake? The stats are: > > > >nfsstat's name kernel name > >Retfailed srv_errs > >Faults srvrpc_errs > >Idem srvcache_idemdonehits > I believe these are left over from when the code was originally written > for OpenBSD2.6, which did not have a separate kernel RPC, where the > NFS code did the RPC calls. > > I suppose they should have been deleted from the FreeBSD port once > it was incorporated into FreeBSD using the kernel RPC, but they were > not. > > Revising the nfsstats structure yet again is a bother. > I suppose you could modify nfsstats.c so that it never displays these > fields. I doubt that would be considered a POLA violation. > > rick > Yep, removing them from nfsstat sounds like the right thing to do given that they'll never be used again. -Alan