[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CY1PR0401MB1536A44D0AB459BB9618664A92700@CY1PR0401MB1536.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 18:41:48 +0000
From: Rodney Cummings <rodney.cummings@...com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"levipearson@...il.com" <levipearson@...il.com>
CC: "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"vinicius.gomes@...el.com" <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
"xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
"andre.guedes@...el.com" <andre.guedes@...el.com>,
"ivan.briano@...el.com" <ivan.briano@...el.com>,
"jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com" <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>,
"boon.leong.ong@...el.com" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
"richardcochran@...il.com" <richardcochran@...il.com>,
"henrik@...tad.us" <henrik@...tad.us>
Subject: RE: [next-queue PATCH v4 3/4] net/sched: Introduce Credit Based
Shaper (CBS) qdisc
The IEEE Std 802.1Q specs for credit-based shaper require precise transmit decisions
within a 125 microsecond window of time.
Even with the Preempt RT patch or similar enhancements, that isn't very practical
as software-only. I doubt that software would conform to the standard's
requirements.
This is analogous to memory, or CPU.
.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 1:29 PM
> To: levipearson@...il.com
> Cc: jiri@...nulli.us; vinicius.gomes@...el.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org; jhs@...atatu.com;
> xiyou.wangcong@...il.com; andre.guedes@...el.com; ivan.briano@...el.com;
> jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com; boon.leong.ong@...el.com;
> richardcochran@...il.com; henrik@...tad.us; Rodney Cummings
> <rodney.cummings@...com>
> Subject: Re: [next-queue PATCH v4 3/4] net/sched: Introduce Credit Based
> Shaper (CBS) qdisc
>
> From: Levi Pearson <levipearson@...il.com>
> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:09:32 -0600
>
> > It would be a shame if this were blocked due to a missing software
> > implementation.
>
> Quite the contrary, I think a software implementation is a minimum
> requirement for inclusion of this feature.
>
> Without a software implementation, there is no clear definition of
> what is supposed to happen, and no clear way for people to test those
> expectations unless they have the specific hardware.
>
> I completely agree with Jiri. Hardware offload first is _not_ how
> we do things in the Linux networking.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists