[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180716140620.4c171c6d@cakuba.lan>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:06:20 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
jan.altenberg@...utronix.de, henrik@...tad.us,
richardcochran@...il.com, levi.pearson@...man.com,
jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v1 1/1] net/sched: Introduce the taprio scheduler
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:13:23 -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >>
> >>gates.sched
> >
> > Any particular reason this has to be in file and not on the cmdline?
>
> The idea here was to keep longer schedules more manageable. And during
> testing I found it more ergonomic to have a file.
>
> It also has the advantage that the file can be reused by other tools,
> dump-classifier (awful name, I admit), included in that github gist, is
> one example, it uses the schedule (and some more information) to
> calculate which packets would fall outside their "windows" in a pcap
> dump.
>
> Anyway, if there are use cases that having the schedule in the command
> line helps, I would be happy to add it.
FWIW there is some precedent in cls_bpf/act_bpf for allowing specifying
potentially long sequences both in command line and as a file (cBPF
filters in that case - see man tc-bpf bytecode and bytecode-file).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists