[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87czxqda4m.fsf@kurt>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:03:53 +0100
From: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt.kanzenbach@...utronix.de>
To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
Cc: "netdev\@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"jhs\@mojatatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
"xiyou.wangcong\@gmail.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
"jiri\@resnulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"kuba\@kernel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"Jose.Abreu\@synopsys.com" <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
Po Liu <po.liu@....com>,
"intel-wired-lan\@lists.osuosl.org"
<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"anthony.l.nguyen\@intel.com" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
"mkubecek\@suse.cz" <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 5/8] igc: Avoid TX Hangs because long cycles
On Tue Jan 26 2021, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:44:50PM -0800, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> Avoid possible TX Hangs caused by using long Qbv cycles. In some
>> cases, using long cycles (more than 1 second) can cause transmissions
>> to be blocked for that time. As the TX Hang timeout is close to 1
>> second, we may need to reduce the cycle time to something more
>> reasonable: the value chosen is 1ms.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
>> ---
>
> Don't you want this patch to go to 'net' and be backported?
I'm wondering about this patch as well. Is this fix related to frame
preemption? If I understand the code correctly the 1sec is a dummy cycle
and all queues are open. How should Tx hang then?
Thanks,
Kurt
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists