From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Richard Cochran <rcochran@linutronix.de>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@intel.com>,
Henrik Austad <henrik@austad.us>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@intel.com>,
intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 0/6] Time based packet transmission
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:43:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170919144302.GB4347@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1505719061.git.rcochran@linutronix.de>
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:41:15AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> This series is an early RFC that introduces a new socket option
> allowing time based transmission of packets. This option will be
> useful in implementing various real time protocols over Ethernet,
> including but not limited to P802.1Qbv, which is currently finding
> its way into 802.1Q.
If I understand it correctly, this also allows us to make a PTP/NTP
"one-step" clock with HW that doesn't support it directly.
> * Open questions about SO_TXTIME semantics
>
> - What should the kernel do if the dialed Tx time is in the past?
> Should the packet be sent ASAP, or should we throw an error?
Dropping the packet with an error would make more sense to me.
> - What should the timescale be for the dialed Tx time? Should the
> kernel select UTC when using the SW Qdisc and the HW time
> otherwise? Or should the socket option include a clockid_t?
I think for applications that don't (want to) bind their socket to a
specific interface it would be useful if the cmsg specified clockid_t
or maybe if_index. If the packet would be sent using a different
PHC/interface, it should be dropped.
> | | plain preempt_rt | so_txtime | txtime @ 250 us |
> |---------+------------------+---------------+-----------------|
> | min: | +1.940800e+04 | +4.720000e+02 | +4.720000e+02 |
> | max: | +7.556000e+04 | +5.680000e+02 | +5.760000e+02 |
> | pk-pk: | +5.615200e+04 | +9.600000e+01 | +1.040000e+02 |
> | mean: | +3.292776e+04 | +5.072274e+02 | +5.073602e+02 |
> | stddev: | +6.514709e+03 | +1.310849e+01 | +1.507144e+01 |
> | count: | 600000 | 600000 | 2400000 |
>
> Using so_txtime, the peak to peak jitter is about 100 nanoseconds,
Nice!
--
Miroslav Lichvar
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-19 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-18 7:41 [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 0/6] Time based packet transmission Richard Cochran
2017-09-18 7:41 ` [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 1/6] net: Add a new socket option for a future transmit time Richard Cochran
2017-09-18 14:50 ` Richard Cochran
2017-09-18 15:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2017-09-18 7:41 ` [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 2/6] net: skbuff: Add a field to support time based transmission Richard Cochran
2017-09-18 15:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2017-09-18 7:41 ` [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 3/6] net: ipv4: raw: Hook into " Richard Cochran
2017-09-18 7:41 ` [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 4/6] net: ipv4: udp: " Richard Cochran
2017-09-18 7:41 ` [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 5/6] net: packet: " Richard Cochran
2017-09-18 7:41 ` [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 6/6] net: igb: Implement " Richard Cochran
2017-09-18 16:34 ` [PATCH RFC V1 net-next 0/6] Time based packet transmission David Miller
2017-12-05 21:22 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2017-09-19 14:43 ` Miroslav Lichvar [this message]
2017-09-19 16:46 ` Richard Cochran
2017-09-20 17:35 ` levipearson
2017-09-20 20:11 ` Richard Cochran
2017-10-18 22:18 ` Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2017-10-19 20:44 ` Richard Cochran
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=20170919144302.GB4347@localhost \
--to=mlichvar@redhat.com \
--cc=andre.guedes@intel.com \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=henrik@austad.us \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=jesus.sanchez-palencia@intel.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rcochran@linutronix.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).