On Mon, 18 May 2020 12:05:04 -0700 Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> writes:
> > From: Vladimir Oltean <olte...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 00:03:39 +0300
> >
> >> As to why this doesn't go to tc but to ethtool: why would it go to tc?
> >
> > Maybe you can't %100 duplicate the on-the-wire special format and
> > whatever, but the queueing behavior ABSOLUTELY you can emulate in
> > software.
>
> Just saying what Vladimir said in different words: the queueing behavior
> is already implemented in software, by mqprio or taprio, for example.
>
> That is to say, if we add frame preemption support to those qdiscs all
> they will do is pass the information to the driver, and that's it. They
> won't be able to use that information at all.
>
> The mental model I have for this feature is that is more similar to the
> segmentation offloads, energy efficient ethernet or auto-negotiation
> than it is to a traffic shaper like CBS.
Please take a look at the example from the cover letter:
$ ethtool $ sudo ./ethtool --show-frame-preemption
enp3s0 Frame preemption settings for enp3s0:
support: supported
active: active
supported queues: 0xf
supported queues: 0xe
minimum fragment size: 68
Reading this I have no idea what 0xe is. I have to go and query TC API
to see what priorities and queues that will be. Which IMHO is a strong
argument that this information belongs there in the first place.
