From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
Cc: "Johannes Berg" <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>,
"Avi Stern" <avraham.stern@intel.com>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: taprio vs. wireless/mac80211
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 17:00:05 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220826170005.79392041@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k06uk65f.fsf@intel.com>
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 15:10:36 -0700 Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 23:50:18 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> >> Anyone have recommendations what we should do?
> >
> > Likely lack of sleep or intelligence on my side but I could not grok
> > from the email what the stacking is, and what the goal is.
> >
> > Are you putting taprio inside mac80211, or leaving it at the netdev
> > layer but taking the fq/codel out?
>
> My read was that they want to do something with taprio with wireless
> devices and were hit by the current limitation that taprio only supports
> multiqueue interfaces.
>
> The fq/codel part is that, as far as I know, there's already a fq/codel
> implementation inside mac80211.
>
> The stacking seems to be that packets would be scheduled by taprio and
> then by the scheduler inside mac80211 (fq/codel based?).
Doesn't adding another layer of non-time-aware queuing after taprio
completely defeat its purpose? Perhaps I'm revealing my lack of
understanding too much..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-27 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-24 21:50 taprio vs. wireless/mac80211 Johannes Berg
2022-08-24 23:33 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2022-08-24 23:55 ` Dave Taht
2022-08-25 2:15 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-08-26 22:10 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2022-08-27 0:00 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2022-08-27 0:13 ` Dave Taht
2022-08-28 19:50 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
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=20220826170005.79392041@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=avraham.stern@intel.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=toke@toke.dk \
--cc=vinicius.gomes@intel.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).