On 2/2/2011 4:25 PM, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
> Shyam,
> 
> On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 4:00 PM, shyam iyer wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 1, 6:10 pm, Mark Rustad <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
>>> +static void set_dcb_priority(struct iscsi_conn *conn, const char *devname)
>>> +{
>>> +       int pri_mask = 0;
>>> +
>>> +       pri_mask = get_dcb_app_pri_by_port(devname, ISCSI_DEFAULT_PORT);
>>> +       if (pri_mask < 0)
>>> +               log_debug(2, "Getting priority for %s returned %d",
>>> +                               devname, pri_mask);
>>> +       else if (pri_mask == 0)
>>> +               log_debug(2, "No priority for %s", devname);
>>> +       else {
>>> +               int pri = select_priority(conn, pri_mask);
>>> +
>>> +               log_debug(1, "Setting socket priority to %d", pri);
>>> +               setsockopt(conn->socket_fd, SOL_SOCKET,
>>> +                               SO_PRIORITY, &pri, sizeof(pri));
>>
>> Are we assuming 0-6 only as the priority ?
> 
> No, it could be 0-7.
> 
>> I thought it should be 0-7 and so requiring CAP_NET_ADMIN
> 
> Hmmm. I think I always see it running as root. So what needs to be done
> to handle other security models?
> 
>> Which brings me to the related question.
>>
>> How will the priority be handled when you have multipathed iSCSI
>> sessions through the same net device.
>>
>> Scenario -
>> 1st Session priority set to 3
>> Change priority to 4
>> Connect 2nd session. I am assuming the priority for the new connection
>> socket is 4.
> 
> Yes. A deficiency in the current implementation is that the first session
> will stay at 3, but the second one would be at 4.
> 
>> Are these two sessions going to be through different H/W queues if the
>> session is through the same ethX
> 
> Yes, they would be.
> 
>> So would it be correct to say that the mapping of the SO_PRIORITY is
>> to the tc configured HW queue?
> 
> John Fastabend could answer this more specifically, but I do see the packets 
> going
> to different hardware queues when different priorities are used. Right now I 
> am not seeing the priority indicated in the VLAN header of transmitted 
> packets and I think that is a bug. Note that I have been testing with kernels 
> that include changes that may not be upstream yet. I guess I should check on 
> where those changes are, but I have other things to do first.
> 

Hi Shyam,

The mapping depends on the priority to TC mapping configured in the
net device. This can be configured through the mqprio qdisc or with
the base driver dflts which is 1:1 for ixgbe and 8 traffic classes.

Note the mqprio qdisc is in net-next-2.6 tree and should get merged into
Linus' tree during the next kernel merge window. Also there will need to
be some enabling of iproute2 that I haven't done yet. For now the
defaults are used.

John.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"open-iscsi" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi?hl=en.

Reply via email to