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 16:37:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y2pnmr83.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <158992799425.36166.17850279656312622646@twxiong-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@intel.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Vinicius Costa Gomes (2020-05-15 18:29:44)
>> One example, for retrieving and setting the configuration:
>>
>> $ ethtool $ sudo ./ethtool --show-frame-preemption enp3s0
>> Frame preemption settings for enp3s0:
>> support: supported
>> active: active
>
> IIUC the code in patch 2, 'active' is the actual configuration knob that
> enables or disables the FP functionality on the NIC.
>
> That sounded a bit confusing to me since the spec uses the term 'active' to
> indicate FP is currently enabled at both ends, and it is a read-only
> information (see 12.30.1.4 from IEEE 802.1Q-2018). Maybe if we called this
> 'enabled' it would be more clear.
Good point. Will rename this to "enabled".
>
>> supported queues: 0xf
>> supported queues: 0xe
>> minimum fragment size: 68
>
> I'm assuming this is the configuration knob for the minimal non-final fragment
> defined in 802.3br.
>
> My understanding from the specs is that this value must be a multiple from 64
> and cannot assume arbitrary values like shown here. See 99.4.7.3 from IEEE
> 802.3 and Note 1 in S.2 from IEEE 802.1Q. In the previous discussion about FP,
> we had this as a multiplier factor, not absolute value.
I thought that exposing this as "(1 + N)*64" (with 0 <= N <= 3) that it
was more related to what's exposed via LLDP than the actual capabilities
of the hardware. And for the hardware I have actually the values
supported are: (1 + N)*64 + 4 (for N = 0, 1, 2, 3).
So I thought I was better to let the driver decide what values are
acceptable.
This is a good question for people working with other hardware.
--
Vinicius
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
To: Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@intel.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, m-karicheri2@ti.com,
Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com
Subject: Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 16:37:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y2pnmr83.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <158992799425.36166.17850279656312622646@twxiong-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@intel.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Vinicius Costa Gomes (2020-05-15 18:29:44)
>> One example, for retrieving and setting the configuration:
>>
>> $ ethtool $ sudo ./ethtool --show-frame-preemption enp3s0
>> Frame preemption settings for enp3s0:
>> support: supported
>> active: active
>
> IIUC the code in patch 2, 'active' is the actual configuration knob that
> enables or disables the FP functionality on the NIC.
>
> That sounded a bit confusing to me since the spec uses the term 'active' to
> indicate FP is currently enabled at both ends, and it is a read-only
> information (see 12.30.1.4 from IEEE 802.1Q-2018). Maybe if we called this
> 'enabled' it would be more clear.
Good point. Will rename this to "enabled".
>
>> supported queues: 0xf
>> supported queues: 0xe
>> minimum fragment size: 68
>
> I'm assuming this is the configuration knob for the minimal non-final fragment
> defined in 802.3br.
>
> My understanding from the specs is that this value must be a multiple from 64
> and cannot assume arbitrary values like shown here. See 99.4.7.3 from IEEE
> 802.3 and Note 1 in S.2 from IEEE 802.1Q. In the previous discussion about FP,
> we had this as a multiplier factor, not absolute value.
I thought that exposing this as "(1 + N)*64" (with 0 <= N <= 3) that it
was more related to what's exposed via LLDP than the actual capabilities
of the hardware. And for the hardware I have actually the values
supported are: (1 + N)*64 + 4 (for N = 0, 1, 2, 3).
So I thought I was better to let the driver decide what values are
acceptable.
This is a good question for people working with other hardware.
--
Vinicius
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-19 23:37 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 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vinicius Costa Gomes
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 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes [this message]
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=87y2pnmr83.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.