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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists