netdev - Re: [PATCH V2 4/7] net/mlx4_en: Set max rate-limit for a TC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:03:57 +0200
From:	Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>
To:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
CC:	Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Yevgeny Petrilin <yevgenyp@...lanox.com>,
	Oren Duer <oren@...lanox.com>,
	Amir Vadai <amirv@....mellanox.co.il>,
	Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/7] net/mlx4_en: Set max rate-limit for a TC


On 03/26/2012 08:55 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 3/26/2012 10:00 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Ben Hutchings
>> <bhutchings@...arflare.com>  wrote:
>>>> We used sysfs since max bw isn't part of the ETS / DCBX NL support, and we're
>>>> open to other suggestions to add generic support for max bw, e.g add call to
>>>> the DCBX NL API.
>>
>>> netlink interfaces are generally easily extensible and it doesn't make
>>> sense to me to augment such an interface through sysfs.  Perhaps you're
>>> concerned that netlink extensions won't be supported in older kernel
>>> versions running your OOT driver?  That's unfortunate, but let's not
>>> standardise an ugly interface based on a temporary problem like that.
>>
>> As written above, that was done since ratelimit isn't part of ETS, we can
>> that through netlink extensions that you mentioned, if this is the preffered
>> way to go, David? Eric? Ben - could you provide pointer to these extensions?
>>
>> Or.
>> --
>
> I think I original suggested it didn't belong in DCBNL because it
> wasn't part of ETS (802.1Qaz). But it _is_ a traffic selection
> algorithm and could fall into the vendor specific part of 802.1Q.
>
> I would suggest either adding it as an option to mqprio to take
> a max bandwidth. The advantage here is it would be tied in with
> the usual QOS tooling 'tc'.
>
> # tc qdisc add dev eth3 root mqprio help
> Usage: ... mqprio [num_tc NUMBER] [map P0 P1 ...]
>                    [queues count1@...set1 count2@...set2 ...] [hw 1|0]
> 		  [max_rate rate@tc ...]
>
This could be elegant, but since tc here is a logical traffic class and
ratelimit in our context is an attribute of ETS TC, it could be
problematic.

>
> Or extending DCBNL being careful not to break backwards
> compatibility. I tend to think extending mqprio is cleaner but
> a DCBNL extension could likely work as well. Would need a
> 'DCBNL_IEEE_SET_MAXRATE' and 'DCBNL_IEEE_GET_MAXRATE' for this
> I expect.
I do prefer this option. I'm checking now if it is possible to add
infrastructure for a vendor specific netlink command. It could be
connected by lldpad to the vendor TLV in DCBX.

>
> .John

I will send a V3 of this patchset without the ratelimit patch, to make 
sure the patchset will get into net-next on time.

Thanks,
Amir
--
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