From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
To: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>,
Yannick Vignon <yannick.vignon@nxp.com>,
Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/sched: taprio: account for L1 overhead when calculating transmit time
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 19:22:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220505192207.li47vyo74tizucuy@skbuf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bkwbj3hj.fsf@intel.com>
On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 10:25:44AM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> writes:
>
> > The taprio scheduler underestimates the packet transmission time, which
> > means that packets can be scheduled for transmission in time slots in
> > which they are never going to fit.
> >
> > When this function was added in commit 4cfd5779bd6e ("taprio: Add
> > support for txtime-assist mode"), the only implication was that time
> > triggered packets would overrun its time slot and eat from the next one,
> > because with txtime-assist there isn't really any emulation of a "gate
> > close" event that would stop a packet from being transmitted.
> >
> > However, commit b5b73b26b3ca ("taprio: Fix allowing too small
> > intervals") started using this function too, in all modes of operation
> > (software, txtime-assist and full offload). So we now accept time slots
> > which we know we won't be ever able to fulfill.
> >
> > It's difficult to say which issue is more pressing, I'd say both are
> > visible with testing, even though the second would be more obvious
> > because of a black&white result (trying to send small packets in an
> > insufficiently large window blocks the queue).
> >
> > Issue found through code inspection, the code was not even compile
> > tested.
> >
> > The L1 overhead chosen here is an approximation, because various network
> > equipment has configurable IFG, however I don't think Linux is aware of
> > this.
>
> When testing CBS, I remember using tc-stab:
>
> https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/tc-stab.8.html
>
> To set the 'overhead' to some value.
>
> That value should be used in the calculation.
>
> I agree that it's not ideal, in the ideal world we would have a way to
> retrieve the link overhead from the netdevice. But I would think that it
> gets complicated really quickly when using netdevices that are not
> Ethernet-based.
Interesting. So because the majority of length_to_duration() calls take
qdisc_pkt_len(skb) as argument, a user-supplied overhead is taken into
account. The exception is the bare ETH_ZLEN. For that, we'd have to
change the prototype of __qdisc_calculate_pkt_len to return an int, and
change qdisc_calculate_pkt_len like this:
static inline void qdisc_calculate_pkt_len(struct sk_buff *skb,
const struct Qdisc *sch)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_NET_SCHED
struct qdisc_size_table *stab = rcu_dereference_bh(sch->stab);
if (stab)
qdisc_skb_cb(skb)->pkt_len = __qdisc_calculate_pkt_len(skb->len, stab);
#endif
}
then we would use __qdisc_calculate_pkt_len(ETH_ZLEN, rtnl_dereference(q->root->stab)).
Again completely untested.
Also, maybe the dependency on tc-stab for correct operation at least in
txtime assist mode should be mentioned in the man page, maybe? I don't
think it's completely obvious.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-05 19:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-05 16:03 [RFC PATCH net] net/sched: taprio: account for L1 overhead when calculating transmit time Vladimir Oltean
2022-05-05 17:25 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2022-05-05 19:22 ` Vladimir Oltean [this message]
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=20220505192207.li47vyo74tizucuy@skbuf \
--to=vladimir.oltean@nxp.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kurt@linutronix.de \
--cc=michael@walle.cc \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=vinicius.gomes@intel.com \
--cc=yannick.vignon@nxp.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).