On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 03:14:55PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote: > > From: Vamsi Attunuru [mailto:vattun...@marvell.com] > > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2024 13.56 > > > > Some DMA controllers support QoS at HW command queue level to > > differentiate the performance on different HW queues based on > > the priority configured. Patch adds required fields in dmadev > > structures to get hardware supported priority levels and the > > provision to configure the priority from the applications. > > Do we foresee anything more advanced than Strict Priority scheduling for DMA > anytime in the future? > > If not, then consider calling this new capability Prioritization (CAPA_PRIO) > instead of Quality Of Service (CAPA_QOS). Then we don't need to add and > describe QoS parameters for a more advanced QoS scheduling algorithm (e.g. > the "weight" for weighted fair queueing). >
There could be more than just regular prioritization settings involved, so I think it's best to leave some options open. Even with just a "prioritization" setting, it could be used as a weighting vs strict priority. Question is whether in such a case - of a single-value number for high vs low priority - it's better to explicitly separate out a weight priority vs a strict priority, or give a simpler interface by allowing just a single number value. /Bruce
