From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 20:45:14 +0200 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption In-Reply-To: References: <20200516012948.3173993-1-vinicius.gomes@intel.com> <20200516.133739.285740119627243211.davem@davemloft.net> <20200516.151932.575795129235955389.davem@davemloft.net> Message-ID: <20200517184514.GD606317@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org List-ID: On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 01:51:19PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 01:19, David Miller wrote: > > > > From: Vladimir Oltean > > Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 00:03:39 +0300 > > > > > As to why this doesn't go to tc but to ethtool: why would it go to tc? > > > > Maybe you can't %100 duplicate the on-the-wire special format and > > whatever, but the queueing behavior ABSOLUTELY you can emulate in > > software. > > > > And then you have the proper hooks added for HW offload which can > > do the on-the-wire stuff. > > > > That's how we do these things, not with bolted on ethtool stuff. > > When talking about frame preemption in the way that it is defined in > 802.1Qbu and 802.3br, it says or assumes nothing about queuing. It > describes the fact that there are 2 MACs per interface, 1 MAC dealing > with some traffic classes and the other dealing with the rest. I did not follow the previous discussion, but i assume you talked about modelling it in Linux as two MACs? Why was that approach not followed? Andrew From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D287C433E0 for ; Sun, 17 May 2020 18:45:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E8820657 for ; Sun, 17 May 2020 18:45:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="OMXPGZuN" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726301AbgEQSpY (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 May 2020 14:45:24 -0400 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:36112 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726269AbgEQSpX (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 May 2020 14:45:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Om2ihcIcTTCsJd0V7LPMZGBDdv56p7fhVEVGIu/z1NU=; b=OMXPGZuN2DUGWDOvdepI0drpje t0J+q5DXzijClPE7jaWI2Sf3cBDPuyovR0ikl/G2EuuBXnb1Gld/gCjnmJBySqz55xZU4CFf7AB2j mWTPjiAJG3RkRwknMC0NxDHZLvwlSOX7qO/IJZCe4pE+75yG2DfHl8UspU+y6i9GtCMQ=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1jaOHi-002YO6-5d; Sun, 17 May 2020 20:45:14 +0200 Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 20:45:14 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Vladimir Oltean Cc: David Miller , Vinicius Costa Gomes , intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, Jeff Kirsher , netdev , Vladimir Oltean , Po Liu , Murali Karicheri , Jose Abreu Subject: Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption Message-ID: <20200517184514.GD606317@lunn.ch> References: <20200516012948.3173993-1-vinicius.gomes@intel.com> <20200516.133739.285740119627243211.davem@davemloft.net> <20200516.151932.575795129235955389.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 01:51:19PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 01:19, David Miller wrote: > > > > From: Vladimir Oltean > > Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 00:03:39 +0300 > > > > > As to why this doesn't go to tc but to ethtool: why would it go to tc? > > > > Maybe you can't %100 duplicate the on-the-wire special format and > > whatever, but the queueing behavior ABSOLUTELY you can emulate in > > software. > > > > And then you have the proper hooks added for HW offload which can > > do the on-the-wire stuff. > > > > That's how we do these things, not with bolted on ethtool stuff. > > When talking about frame preemption in the way that it is defined in > 802.1Qbu and 802.3br, it says or assumes nothing about queuing. It > describes the fact that there are 2 MACs per interface, 1 MAC dealing > with some traffic classes and the other dealing with the rest. I did not follow the previous discussion, but i assume you talked about modelling it in Linux as two MACs? Why was that approach not followed? Andrew