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]
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ