netdev - Re: taprio testing

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:14:48 -0700
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>,
        "netdev\@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: taprio testing - Any help?

Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> writes:

>
> What do you mean taprio doesn't support tc filter blocks? What do you
> think there is to do in taprio to support that?
> I don't think Murali is asking for filter offloading, but merely for a
> way to direct frames to a certain traffic class on xmit from Linux.
> Something like this works perfectly fine:
>
> sudo tc qdisc add dev swp2 root handle 1: taprio num_tc 2 map 0 1
> queues 1@0 1@1 base-time 1000 sched-entry S 03 300000 flags 2
> # Add the qdisc holding the classifiers
> sudo tc qdisc add dev swp2 clsact
> # Steer L2 PTP to TC 1 (see with "tc filter show dev swp2 egress")
> sudo tc filter add dev swp2 egress prio 1 u32 match u16 0x88f7 0xffff
> at -2 action skbedit priority 1
>

That's cool. Everyday I'm learning something new :-)

> However, the clsact qdisc and tc u32 egress filter can be replaced
> with proper use of the SO_PRIORITY API, which is preferable for new
> applications IMO.
>
> I'm trying to send a demo application to tools/testing/selftests/
> which sends cyclic traffic through a raw L2 socket at a configurable
> base-time and cycle-time, along with the accompanying scripts to set
> up the receiver and bandwidth reservation on an in-between switch. But
> I have some trouble getting the sender application to work reliably at
> 100 us cycle-time, so it may take a while until I figure out with
> kernelshark what's going on.

Yeah, 100us cycle-time for software mode is kind of hard to make it work
reliably. i.e. without any offloading, I can only get something close to
that to work with a PREEMPT_RT kernel and disabling all kinds of power
saving features.


Cheers,
--
Vinicius