From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vinicius Costa Gomes Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:11:50 -0800 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 0/8] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption In-Reply-To: <20210129233729.bjckcxcx45hueb2z@skbuf> References: <20210122224453.4161729-1-vinicius.gomes@intel.com> <20210129233729.bjckcxcx45hueb2z@skbuf> Message-ID: <87tuqzqo55.fsf@vcostago-mobl2.amr.corp.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: Vladimir Oltean writes: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:44:45PM -0800, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote: >> This is still an RFC because two main reasons, I want to confirm that >> this approach (per-queue settings via qdiscs, device settings via >> ethtool) looks good, even though there aren't much more options left ;-) > > I don't want to bother you too much, but a consequence of putting the > per-priority settings into tc-taprio is that those will spill over into > other qdiscs too that have nothing to do with TSN, for whomever will > need frame preemption without time-aware scheduling (and there are > reasons to want that). > So could we see in the next version the frame preemption bits added to > tc-mqprio as well? I just want to make sure that we run this by the tc > maintainers and that the idea gets their informed consent before we end > up in a position where frame preemption with time-aware scheduling is > done in one way, but frame preemption without time-aware scheduling is > done another way. > You should not need to change anything related to TC_SETUP_PREEMPT in > the igc driver, so it should be just code addition. Good suggestion. Will do. Cheers, -- Vinicius