From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vinicius Costa Gomes Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 15:06:26 -0700 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption In-Reply-To: <20200518135613.379f6a63@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> References: <20200516012948.3173993-1-vinicius.gomes@intel.com> <20200516.133739.285740119627243211.davem@davemloft.net> <20200516.151932.575795129235955389.davem@davemloft.net> <87wo59oyhr.fsf@intel.com> <20200518135613.379f6a63@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> Message-ID: <87h7wcq4nx.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org List-ID: Hi, Jakub Kicinski writes: > > Please take a look at the example from the cover letter: > > $ ethtool $ sudo ./ethtool --show-frame-preemption > enp3s0 Frame preemption settings for enp3s0: > support: supported > active: active > supported queues: 0xf > supported queues: 0xe > minimum fragment size: 68 > > Reading this I have no idea what 0xe is. I have to go and query TC API > to see what priorities and queues that will be. Which IMHO is a strong > argument that this information belongs there in the first place. That was the (only?) strong argument in favor of having frame preemption in the TC side when this was last discussed. We can have a hybrid solution, we can move the express/preemptible per queue map to mqprio/taprio/whatever. And have the more specific configuration knobs, minimum fragment size, etc, in ethtool. What do you think? Cheers, -- Vinicius