From: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 08:32:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87v9ksndnr.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b33e582f-e0e6-467a-636a-674322108855@ti.com>
Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@ti.com> writes:
>> $ ethtool $ sudo ./ethtool --show-frame-preemption enp3s0
>> Frame preemption settings for enp3s0:
>> support: supported
>> active: active
>> supported queues: 0xf
>
> I assume this is will be in sync with ethtool -L output which indicates
> how many tx h/w queues present? I mean if there are 8 h/w queues,
> supported queues will show 0xff.
In this approach, the driver builds these bitmasks, so it's responsible
to keep it consistent with the rest of the stuff that's exposed in
ethtool.
>
>> supported queues: 0xe
> From the command below, it appears this is the preemptible queue mask.
> bit 0 is Q0, bit 1 Q1 and so forth. Right? In that case isn't it more
> clear to display
> preemptible queues : 0xef
>
> In the above Q7 is express queue and Q6-Q0 are preemptible.
In my case, the controller I have here only has 4 queues, and Queue 0 is
the highest priority one, and it's marked as express.
>
> Also there is a handshake called verify that happens which initiated
> by the h/w to check the capability of peer. It looks like
> not all vendor's hardware supports it and good to have it displayed
> something like
>
> Verify supported/{not supported}
>
> If Verify is supported, FPE is enabled only if it succeeds. So may be
> good to show a status of Verify if it is supported something like
> Verify success/Failed
>
>> minimum fragment size: 68
>>
>>
>> $ ethtool --set-frame-preemption enp3s0 fp on min-frag-size 68 preemptible-queues-mask 0xe
>>
>> This is a RFC because I wanted to have feedback on some points:
>>
>> - The parameters added are enough for the hardware I have, is it
>> enough in general?
>
> As described above, it would be good to add an optional parameter for
> verify
>
> ethtool --set-frame-preemption enp3s0 fp on min-frag-size 68
> preemptible-queues-mask 0xe verify on
>
The hardware I have do not support this, but this makes sense.
Cheers,
--
Vinicius
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
To: Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@ti.com>, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org
Cc: jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
vladimir.oltean@nxp.com, po.liu@nxp.com, Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com
Subject: Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 08:32:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87v9ksndnr.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b33e582f-e0e6-467a-636a-674322108855@ti.com>
Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@ti.com> writes:
>> $ ethtool $ sudo ./ethtool --show-frame-preemption enp3s0
>> Frame preemption settings for enp3s0:
>> support: supported
>> active: active
>> supported queues: 0xf
>
> I assume this is will be in sync with ethtool -L output which indicates
> how many tx h/w queues present? I mean if there are 8 h/w queues,
> supported queues will show 0xff.
In this approach, the driver builds these bitmasks, so it's responsible
to keep it consistent with the rest of the stuff that's exposed in
ethtool.
>
>> supported queues: 0xe
> From the command below, it appears this is the preemptible queue mask.
> bit 0 is Q0, bit 1 Q1 and so forth. Right? In that case isn't it more
> clear to display
> preemptible queues : 0xef
>
> In the above Q7 is express queue and Q6-Q0 are preemptible.
In my case, the controller I have here only has 4 queues, and Queue 0 is
the highest priority one, and it's marked as express.
>
> Also there is a handshake called verify that happens which initiated
> by the h/w to check the capability of peer. It looks like
> not all vendor's hardware supports it and good to have it displayed
> something like
>
> Verify supported/{not supported}
>
> If Verify is supported, FPE is enabled only if it succeeds. So may be
> good to show a status of Verify if it is supported something like
> Verify success/Failed
>
>> minimum fragment size: 68
>>
>>
>> $ ethtool --set-frame-preemption enp3s0 fp on min-frag-size 68 preemptible-queues-mask 0xe
>>
>> This is a RFC because I wanted to have feedback on some points:
>>
>> - The parameters added are enough for the hardware I have, is it
>> enough in general?
>
> As described above, it would be good to add an optional parameter for
> verify
>
> ethtool --set-frame-preemption enp3s0 fp on min-frag-size 68
> preemptible-queues-mask 0xe verify on
>
The hardware I have do not support this, but this makes sense.
Cheers,
--
Vinicius
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-19 15:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-16 1:29 [Intel-wired-lan] [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-16 1:29 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-16 1:29 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [next-queue RFC 1/4] ethtool: Add support for configuring " Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-16 1:29 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-19 15:27 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Murali Karicheri
2020-05-19 15:27 ` Murali Karicheri
2020-05-16 1:29 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [next-queue RFC 2/4] ethtool: Add support for configuring frame preemption via netlink Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-16 1:29 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-18 12:27 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-05-18 12:27 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-05-16 1:29 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [next-queue RFC 3/4] igc: Add support for configuring frame preemption Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-16 1:29 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-19 16:36 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Murali Karicheri
2020-05-19 16:36 ` Murali Karicheri
2020-05-16 1:29 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [next-queue RFC 4/4] igc: Add support for exposing frame preemption stats registers Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-16 1:29 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-20 12:50 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Murali Karicheri
2020-05-20 12:50 ` Murali Karicheri
2020-05-16 9:33 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption Michal Kubecek
2020-05-16 9:33 ` Michal Kubecek
2020-05-18 19:34 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-18 19:34 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-19 22:40 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Andre Guedes
2020-05-19 22:40 ` Andre Guedes
2020-05-19 22:53 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-19 22:53 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-16 20:37 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " David Miller
2020-05-16 20:37 ` David Miller
2020-05-16 21:03 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vladimir Oltean
2020-05-16 21:03 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-05-16 22:19 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " David Miller
2020-05-16 22:19 ` David Miller
2020-05-17 10:51 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vladimir Oltean
2020-05-17 10:51 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-05-17 18:45 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Andrew Lunn
2020-05-17 18:45 ` Andrew Lunn
2020-05-17 19:04 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vladimir Oltean
2020-05-17 19:04 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-05-18 19:05 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-18 19:05 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-18 20:56 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2020-05-18 20:56 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-05-18 22:06 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-18 22:06 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-18 22:22 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2020-05-18 22:22 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-05-18 23:05 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-18 23:05 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-18 23:09 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2020-05-18 23:09 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-05-20 21:42 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Andre Guedes
2020-05-20 21:42 ` Andre Guedes
2020-05-20 22:35 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-20 22:35 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-19 16:34 ` Murali Karicheri
2020-05-19 16:34 ` Murali Karicheri
2020-05-19 17:49 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-19 17:49 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-17 15:06 ` Michael Walle
2020-05-18 13:36 ` Murali Karicheri
2020-05-19 20:41 ` Michael Walle
2020-05-19 14:53 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Murali Karicheri
2020-05-19 14:53 ` Murali Karicheri
2020-05-19 15:32 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes [this message]
2020-05-19 15:32 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-19 16:11 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Murali Karicheri
2020-05-19 16:11 ` Murali Karicheri
2020-05-19 22:39 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Andre Guedes
2020-05-19 22:39 ` Andre Guedes
2020-05-19 23:37 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-19 23:37 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-20 12:47 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Murali Karicheri
2020-05-20 12:47 ` Murali Karicheri
2020-05-20 12:52 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Joergen Andreasen
2020-05-20 12:52 ` Joergen Andreasen
2020-05-20 21:32 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-05-20 21:32 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-05-19 9:10 [Intel-wired-lan] " Po Liu
2020-05-19 16:43 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
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=87v9ksndnr.fsf@intel.com \
--to=vinicius.gomes@intel.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.