From: Vladimir Kondratiev <vkondra@mail.ru>
To: netdev@oss.sgi.com
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
James Ketrenos <jketreno@linux.jf.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: in-driver QoS
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:28:23 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200406072328.23836.vkondra@mail.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40C4C42F.2040006@pobox.com>
Jeff,
Point is, wireless will support QoS on link level. Ethernet have no QoS on
link, thus one Tx queue was sufficient.
For those QoS discipline, parameters are chosen by access point. Network stack
don't know these parameters. BTW, how could driver tell to the stack what QoS
should be employed?
If stack do not provide exactly the same QoS as driver need, driver's one will
not work.
For generic 802.11 wireless stack, it should be framework for the driver to
use 4 Tx queues for diff serv (separate start/stop...), and also some hooks
for integrated service. Otherwise, like with current, simple 802.11 w/o TGe
and other extensions, each driver will need to reinvent the wheel.
I know very little about ATM, but it have QoS, both diff serv and int serv.
May be it is worth to borrow from it?
Vladimir.
On Monday 07 June 2004 22:38, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:
> > skb->priority help determining Tx queue, but fundamental problem is with
> > single Tx queue from network stack. Any smart queuing/scheduling etc.
> > made by driver, will render useless while network stack provides single
> > Tx queue.
>
> The packet schedulers already have multiple queues, why isn't the packet
> scheduling framework sufficient?
>
> Who cares if there is a single TX "delivery point" to the driver, as
> long as the driver knows how to differentiate queues.
>
> Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-06-07 20:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200406072217.31924.vkondra@mail.ru>
2004-06-07 19:38 ` Fwd: in-driver QoS Jeff Garzik
2004-06-07 20:28 ` Vladimir Kondratiev [this message]
2004-06-07 22:58 ` Andi Kleen
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=200406072328.23836.vkondra@mail.ru \
--to=vkondra@mail.ru \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=jketreno@linux.jf.intel.com \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).