From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
To: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Cc: Oliver Hartkopp <oliver@hartkopp.net>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: hardware time stamping with extra skb->hwtstamp
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:37:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1228127861.16263.590.camel@ecld0pohly> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200811272053.10009.opurdila@ixiacom.com>
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 18:53 +0000, Octavian Purdila wrote:
> From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:31:07 +0100
> > On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 14:02 +0000, Octavian Purdila wrote:
> > > Let me throw in another idea: when enabling hw timestamps could we
> > > allocate a bigger skb and store the hw timestamp somewhere in the skb
> > > data buffer?
> >
> > How does the socket layer detect that the HW timestamp is available in
> > the larger skb data buffer, and where?
> >
>
> It doesn't know, thats why we need help from the device (the new netdev
> method).
That just pushes the problem into the device driver: when it gets passed
a skb pointer, how can it tell reliably that the data buffer contains
the HW timestamping information?
I agree with Oliver, this approach doesn't look maintainable to me. I
don't know enough about the kernel to tell whether it works reliably at
the moment, much less whether it will work in the future.
Oliver asked:
> One additional question for Patrick:
> As you wrote that your hw timestamp contained in the new skbuff-field is
> already cocked ... is there any identifier that tells the userspace
> application about the type of hw timestamp he gets (e.g. cocked, raw
> registers, offset to whatever, etc.) ?
In the proposed API the userspace application gets three time stamps:
software, "cooked" hardware time stamp (converted to nanoseconds by the
driver, but not tampered with in any other way), hardware time stamp
converted to system time. Each of these may be missing (not available,
couldn't be calculated). So yes, the userspace application knows what it
got and can pick the value that it needs.
Oliver suggested:
> What about just creating a new pointer in the struct skbuff that points
> to a struct hwstamp when it is available OR the pointer is NULL when no
> hwstamps are available.
I like this better than tampering with the data buffer pointers
implicitly because it enables usages of the additional information
inside the kernel itself. It's similar to skb_shared_info, except that
it is not allocated for all skbs.
The skb_shared_info is always at the end of the data buffer. Assume that
we have a new __netdev_alloc_hw_skb() which increases the allocated data
buffer to make room for the additional struct hwtstamp (either before
skb_shared_info or after). I cannot think of a way how the rest of the
kernel can tell that this additional data is available by just looking
at the existing head/data/end fields in a skb - if I missed something,
please let me know.
So it seems to me that we need the additional 32 bit offset (or pointer,
on 32 bit architectures) in skb which points towards the struct
hwtstamp. But that's actually less than the additional 64 bit which hold
the time stamp value, as in the current patch. I'll give it a few more
days for further debate, then try out this approach.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-01 10:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-19 12:08 hardware time stamping with extra skb->hwtstamp Patrick Ohly
2008-11-19 12:08 ` [RFC PATCH 01/11] put_cmsg_compat + SO_TIMESTAMP[NS]: use same name for value as caller Patrick Ohly
2008-11-19 12:08 ` [RFC PATCH 02/11] net: new user space API for time stamping of incoming and outgoing packets Patrick Ohly
2008-11-19 12:08 ` [RFC PATCH 03/11] net: infrastructure for hardware time stamping Patrick Ohly
2008-11-19 12:08 ` [RFC PATCH 04/11] net: socket infrastructure for SO_TIMESTAMPING Patrick Ohly
2008-11-19 12:08 ` [RFC PATCH 05/11] ip: support for TX timestamps on UDP and RAW sockets Patrick Ohly
2008-11-19 12:08 ` [RFC PATCH 06/11] net: pass new SIOCSHWTSTAMP through to device drivers Patrick Ohly
2008-11-19 12:08 ` [RFC PATCH 07/11] igb: stub support for SIOCSHWTSTAMP Patrick Ohly
2008-11-19 12:08 ` [RFC PATCH 08/11] clocksource: allow usage independent of timekeeping.c Patrick Ohly
2008-11-19 12:08 ` [RFC PATCH 09/11] igb: infrastructure for hardware time stamping Patrick Ohly
2008-11-19 12:08 ` [RFC PATCH 10/11] time sync: generic infrastructure to map between time stamps generated by a clock source and system time Patrick Ohly
2008-11-19 12:08 ` [RFC PATCH 11/11] igb: use clocksync to implement hardware time stamping Patrick Ohly
2008-11-20 1:14 ` [RFC PATCH 10/11] time sync: generic infrastructure to map between time stamps generated by a clock source and system time Andrew Morton
2008-11-20 7:08 ` Ohly, Patrick
2008-12-05 21:05 ` [RFC PATCH 08/11] clocksource: allow usage independent of timekeeping.c john stultz
2008-12-11 12:11 ` Patrick Ohly
2008-12-11 22:23 ` john stultz
2008-12-12 8:50 ` Patrick Ohly
2008-11-19 15:21 ` [RFC PATCH 03/11] net: infrastructure for hardware time stamping Patrick Ohly
2008-11-27 6:14 ` hardware time stamping with extra skb->hwtstamp Oliver Hartkopp
2008-11-27 10:07 ` Patrick Ohly
2008-11-27 14:02 ` Octavian Purdila
2008-11-27 15:31 ` Patrick Ohly
2008-11-27 18:53 ` Octavian Purdila
2008-11-27 22:13 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2008-11-28 12:55 ` Octavian Purdila
2008-11-28 15:38 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2008-11-28 16:00 ` Octavian Purdila
2008-12-01 10:37 ` Patrick Ohly [this message]
2008-12-01 16:31 ` Patrick Ohly
2008-12-01 16:45 ` Oliver Hartkopp
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=1228127861.16263.590.camel@ecld0pohly \
--to=patrick.ohly@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oliver@hartkopp.net \
--cc=opurdila@ixiacom.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox