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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 18 May 2020 16:09:06 -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 16:05:08 -0700 Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> 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. 

If standard defines it as per-MAC and we can reasonably expect vendors
won't try to "add value" and make it per queue (unlikely here AFAIU),
then for this part ethtool configuration seems okay to me.