netdev - Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

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: <87blmkq1y3.fsf@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 May 2020 16:05:08 -0700
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:

>> 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?

Yes, it's a per-MAC setting, not per-queue. 


-- 
Vinicius