netdev - RE: [PATCH iproute2-next] taprio: Add support for the SetAndHold and SetAndRelease commands

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

Date:   Wed, 08 Jan 2020 17:09:48 -0800
From:   Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
        Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
Cc:     Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH iproute2-next] taprio: Add support for the SetAndHold and SetAndRelease commands

Hi Jose,

> > > On our IPs Queue 0 is by preemptible and all remaining ones are express 
> > > by default.
> > 
> > Is this configuration fixed in your IP or the user can control if a specific
> > queue is preemptible or express?
> 
> It's configurable for all Queues except 0 which is fixed as preemptible.

Thanks for the clarification.

> > I'm trying to figure out how this discussion relates to the Qbu discussion
> > we're having in "[v1,net-next, 1/2] ethtool: add setting frame preemption of
> > traffic classes".
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> I think tc utility is the right way to do this, and not ethtool because 
> EST and FP are highly tied ... Do you agree ?

I'm still wrapping my head around this :) See my last reply on that other
thread. (BTW, let's concentrate this 'Qbu enabling' discussion there)

Thanks,

Andre