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  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:   Mon, 18 May 2020 15:06:26 -0700
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:     David Miller <>,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption


Jakub Kicinski <> writes:
> Please take a look at the example from the cover letter:
> $ ethtool $ sudo ./ethtool --show-frame-preemption
> enp3s0 Frame preemption settings for enp3s0:
> 	support: supported
> 	active: active
> 	supported queues: 0xf
> 	supported queues: 0xe
> 	minimum fragment size: 68
> Reading this I have no idea what 0xe is. I have to go and query TC API
> to see what priorities and queues that will be. Which IMHO is a strong
> argument that this information belongs there in the first place.

That was the (only?) strong argument in favor of having frame preemption
in the TC side when this was last discussed.

We can have a hybrid solution, we can move the express/preemptible per
queue map to mqprio/taprio/whatever. And have the more specific
configuration knobs, minimum fragment size, etc, in ethtool.

What do you think?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists