All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 0/6] Time based packet transmission
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:43:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170919144302.GB4347@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1505719061.git.rcochran@linutronix.de>

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:41:15AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> This series is an early RFC that introduces a new socket option
> allowing time based transmission of packets.  This option will be
> useful in implementing various real time protocols over Ethernet,
> including but not limited to P802.1Qbv, which is currently finding
> its way into 802.1Q.

If I understand it correctly, this also allows us to make a PTP/NTP
"one-step" clock with HW that doesn't support it directly.

> * Open questions about SO_TXTIME semantics
> 
>   - What should the kernel do if the dialed Tx time is in the past?
>     Should the packet be sent ASAP, or should we throw an error?

Dropping the packet with an error would make more sense to me.

>   - What should the timescale be for the dialed Tx time?  Should the
>     kernel select UTC when using the SW Qdisc and the HW time
>     otherwise?  Or should the socket option include a clockid_t?

I think for applications that don't (want to) bind their socket to a
specific interface it would be useful if the cmsg specified clockid_t
or maybe if_index. If the packet would be sent using a different
PHC/interface, it should be dropped.

>   |         | plain preempt_rt |     so_txtime | txtime @ 250 us |
>   |---------+------------------+---------------+-----------------|
>   | min:    |    +1.940800e+04 | +4.720000e+02 |   +4.720000e+02 |
>   | max:    |    +7.556000e+04 | +5.680000e+02 |   +5.760000e+02 |
>   | pk-pk:  |    +5.615200e+04 | +9.600000e+01 |   +1.040000e+02 |
>   | mean:   |    +3.292776e+04 | +5.072274e+02 |   +5.073602e+02 |
>   | stddev: |    +6.514709e+03 | +1.310849e+01 |   +1.507144e+01 |
>   | count:  |           600000 |        600000 |         2400000 |
> 
>   Using so_txtime, the peak to peak jitter is about 100 nanoseconds,

Nice!

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Richard Cochran <rcochran@linutronix.de>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@intel.com>,
	Henrik Austad <henrik@austad.us>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@intel.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 0/6] Time based packet transmission
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:43:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170919144302.GB4347@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1505719061.git.rcochran@linutronix.de>

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:41:15AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> This series is an early RFC that introduces a new socket option
> allowing time based transmission of packets.  This option will be
> useful in implementing various real time protocols over Ethernet,
> including but not limited to P802.1Qbv, which is currently finding
> its way into 802.1Q.

If I understand it correctly, this also allows us to make a PTP/NTP
"one-step" clock with HW that doesn't support it directly.

> * Open questions about SO_TXTIME semantics
> 
>   - What should the kernel do if the dialed Tx time is in the past?
>     Should the packet be sent ASAP, or should we throw an error?

Dropping the packet with an error would make more sense to me.

>   - What should the timescale be for the dialed Tx time?  Should the
>     kernel select UTC when using the SW Qdisc and the HW time
>     otherwise?  Or should the socket option include a clockid_t?

I think for applications that don't (want to) bind their socket to a
specific interface it would be useful if the cmsg specified clockid_t
or maybe if_index. If the packet would be sent using a different
PHC/interface, it should be dropped.

>   |         | plain preempt_rt |     so_txtime | txtime @ 250 us |
>   |---------+------------------+---------------+-----------------|
>   | min:    |    +1.940800e+04 | +4.720000e+02 |   +4.720000e+02 |
>   | max:    |    +7.556000e+04 | +5.680000e+02 |   +5.760000e+02 |
>   | pk-pk:  |    +5.615200e+04 | +9.600000e+01 |   +1.040000e+02 |
>   | mean:   |    +3.292776e+04 | +5.072274e+02 |   +5.073602e+02 |
>   | stddev: |    +6.514709e+03 | +1.310849e+01 |   +1.507144e+01 |
>   | count:  |           600000 |        600000 |         2400000 |
> 
>   Using so_txtime, the peak to peak jitter is about 100 nanoseconds,

Nice!

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-09-19 14:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-18  7:41 [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 0/6] Time based packet transmission Richard Cochran
2017-09-18  7:41 ` Richard Cochran
2017-09-18  7:41 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 1/6] net: Add a new socket option for a future transmit time Richard Cochran
2017-09-18  7:41   ` Richard Cochran
2017-09-18 14:50   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2017-09-18 14:50     ` Richard Cochran
2017-09-18 15:18   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Eric Dumazet
2017-09-18 15:18     ` Eric Dumazet
2017-09-18  7:41 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 2/6] net: skbuff: Add a field to support time based transmission Richard Cochran
2017-09-18  7:41   ` Richard Cochran
2017-09-18 15:14   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Eric Dumazet
2017-09-18 15:14     ` Eric Dumazet
2017-09-18  7:41 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 3/6] net: ipv4: raw: Hook into " Richard Cochran
2017-09-18  7:41   ` Richard Cochran
2017-09-18  7:41 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 4/6] net: ipv4: udp: " Richard Cochran
2017-09-18  7:41   ` Richard Cochran
2017-09-18  7:41 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 5/6] net: packet: " Richard Cochran
2017-09-18  7:41   ` Richard Cochran
2017-09-18  7:41 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 6/6] net: igb: Implement " Richard Cochran
2017-09-18  7:41   ` Richard Cochran
2017-09-18 16:34 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 0/6] Time based packet transmission David Miller
2017-09-18 16:34   ` David Miller
2017-12-05 21:22   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vinicius Costa Gomes
2017-12-05 21:22     ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2017-09-19 14:43 ` Miroslav Lichvar [this message]
2017-09-19 14:43   ` Miroslav Lichvar
2017-09-19 16:46   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2017-09-19 16:46     ` Richard Cochran
2017-09-20 17:35 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " levipearson
2017-09-20 17:35   ` levipearson
2017-09-20 20:11   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2017-09-20 20:11     ` Richard Cochran
2017-10-18 22:18 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2017-10-18 22:18   ` Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2017-10-19 20:44   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2017-10-19 20:44     ` Richard Cochran

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170919144302.GB4347@localhost \
    --to=mlichvar@redhat.com \
    --cc=intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.