[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200518152259.29d2e3c7@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 15:22:59 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, olteanv@...il.com,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, vladimir.oltean@....com, po.liu@....com,
m-karicheri2@...com, Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com
Subject: Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption
On Mon, 18 May 2020 15:06:26 -0700 Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> 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?
Does the standard specify minimum fragment size as a global MAC setting?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists