[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN8PR12MB32663AE71CBF7CF0258C86D7D3390@BN8PR12MB3266.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 08:59:24 +0000
From: Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
To: Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...ux.intel.com>,
Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>,
Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>,
Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
CC: Po Liu <po.liu@....com>,
"alexandru.ardelean@...log.com" <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com>,
"allison@...utok.net" <allison@...utok.net>,
"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
"ayal@...lanox.com" <ayal@...lanox.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"hauke.mehrtens@...el.com" <hauke.mehrtens@...el.com>,
"hkallweit1@...il.com" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"jiri@...lanox.com" <jiri@...lanox.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"pablo@...filter.org" <pablo@...filter.org>,
"saeedm@...lanox.com" <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
"simon.horman@...ronome.com" <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.marginean@....com>,
Xiaoliang Yang <xiaoliang.yang_1@....com>,
Roy Zang <roy.zang@....com>, Mingkai Hu <mingkai.hu@....com>,
Jerry Huang <jerry.huang@....com>, Leo Li <leoyang.li@....com>,
Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [v1,net-next, 1/2] ethtool: add setting frame
preemption of traffic classes
From: Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...ux.intel.com>
Date: Jan/09/2020, 01:07:37 (UTC+00:00)
> After reading all this great discussion and revisiting the 802.1Q and 802.3br
> specs, I'm now leaning towards to not coupling Frame Preemption support under
> taprio qdisc. Besides what have been discussed, Annex S.2 from 802.1Q-2018
> foresees FP without EST so it makes me feel like we should keep them separate.
I agree that EST and FP can be used individually. But how can you
specify the hold and release commands for gates without changing taprio qdisc user space API ?
> Regarding the FP configuration knobs, the following seems reasonable to me:
> * Enable/disable FP feature
> * Preemptable queue mapping
> * Fragment size multiplier
>
> I'm not sure about the knob 'timers (hold/release)' described in the quotes
> above. I couldn't find a match in the specs. If it refers to 'holdAdvance' and
> 'releaseAdvance' parameters described in 802.1Q-2018, I believe they are not
> configurable. Do we know any hardware where they are configurable?
Synopsys' HW supports reconfiguring these parameters. They are, however,
fixed independently of Queues. i.e. all queues will have same holdAdvance / releaseAdvance.
---
Thanks,
Jose Miguel Abreu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists