From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/10] bql: Byte Queue Limits Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:45:33 +0100 Message-ID: <1322552733.2970.78.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1322550138.2970.70.camel@edumazet-laptop> <4ED4885F.8060309@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Dave Taht , Tom Herbert , "davem@davemloft.net" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: John Fastabend Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:43056 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752248Ab1K2Hpm (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2011 02:45:42 -0500 Received: by bkas6 with SMTP id s6so126848bka.19 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 23:45:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4ED4885F.8060309@intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le lundi 28 novembre 2011 =C3=A0 23:23 -0800, John Fastabend a =C3=A9cr= it : > I wonder if we should consider enabling TSO/GSO per queue or per traf= fic > class on devices that support this. At least in devices that support > multiple traffic classes it seems to be a common usage case to put bu= lk > storage traffic (iSCSI) on a traffic class and low latency traffic on= a > separate traffic class, VoIP for example. >=20 It all depends on how device itself is doing its mux from queues to ethernet wire. If queue 0 starts transmit of one 64KB 'super packet', will queue 1 be able to insert a litle frame between the frames of queu= e 0 ?