[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1292419188.2067.27.camel@mojatatu>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:19:48 -0500
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
Cc: "shemminger@...tta.com" <shemminger@...tta.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"tgraf@...radead.org" <tgraf@...radead.org>,
"eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] iproute2: add IFLA_TC support to 'ip link'
Sorry for the latency.
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 11:58 -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> I think what we really want is a container to create groups of tx queues
> which can then be managed and given a scheduler. One reason for this is
> the 802.1Q spec allows for different schedulers to be running on different
> traffic classes including vendor specific schedulers. So having a root
> "hardware-kinda-8021q-sched" doesn't seem flexible enough to handle
> adding/removing schedulers per traffic class.
>
> With a container qdisc statistics roll up nicely as expected and
> the default scheduler can be the usual mq qdisc.
As far as i can see the "container" is a qdisc. The noun doesnt
matter, mq looks sufficient.
[I just said "hardware-kinda-8021q-sched" because what you posted didnt
look 8012q conformant.]
> A first take at this coming shortly. Any thoughts?
Havent had time to look at patches you posted.
> > Ok, so you can do rate control as well?
>
> Yes, but per tx_ring. So software needs to then balance the rings into
> an aggregated rate limiter. Using the container scheme I imagine a root
> mclass qdisc with multiple "sch_rate_limiter" qdiscs. This qdisc could
> manage the individual rate limiters per queue and get something like a
> rate limiter per groups of tx queues.
>
The qdisc semantics allow for hierachies i.e you could have qdiscs that
hold other qdiscs that each hold different scheduling algorithms etc.
> Yes this is how I would expect this to work. The prio mapping is configurable
> so I think this could be worked around by policy in tc. iproute2 would need
> to pick a reasonable default mapping.
>
> Warning thinking out loud here but maybe we could also add a qdisc op to pick
> the underlying tx queue basically a qdisc ops for dev_pick_tx(). This ops could
> be part of the root qdisc and called in dev_queue_xmit(). I would need to think
> about this some more to see if it is sane but bottom line is the tx queue needs
> to be learned before __dev_xmit_skb(). The default mechanism in this patch set
> being the skb prio.
>
You could use the qdisc major:minor to map to the hardware level queues.
But care is needed so that the user doesnt choose the wrong mapping, out
of boundary mapping etc. I am sure such validation can be done at
iproute2 level way before the hardware is configured.
cheers,
jamal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists