Hi,
On 10/19/2017 01:39 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 03:37:35PM -0700, Jesus Sanchez-Palencia wrote:
>> I also did some tests with when you don't set valid launch times, but here
>> using
>> your idea from above, so with the driver calculating a valid launch time
>> (i.e.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 03:37:35PM -0700, Jesus Sanchez-Palencia wrote:
> I also did some tests with when you don't set valid launch times, but here
> using
> your idea from above, so with the driver calculating a valid launch time (i.e.
> current NIC time + X ns, varying X across tests) for packe
Hi Richard,
On 09/19/2017 10:25 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
(...)
>
>> I have a question, what about a controller that doesn't provide a way to
>> set a per-packet transmission time, but it supports Qbv/Qbu. What would
>> be your proposal to configure it?
>
> SO_TXTIME will have a generic SW fa
Hi all,
On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 12:45 -0600, Levi Pearson wrote:
> Hi Rodney,
>
> Some archives seem to have threaded it, but I have CC'd the
> participants I saw in the original discussion thread since they may
> not otherwise notice it amongst the normal traffic.
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:44
9 PM
> To: Rodney Cummings
> Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers ; Vinicius
> Costa Gomes ; Henrik Austad ;
> richardcoch...@gmail.com; jesus.sanchez-palen...@intel.com;
> andre.gue...@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/5] TSN: Add qdisc-based config interfaces for
> tra
Hi Rodney,
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Rodney Cummings wrote:
> It's a shame that someone built such hardware. Speaking as a manufacturer
> of daisy-chainable products for industrial/automotive applications, I
> wouldn't use that hardware in my products. The whole point of scheduling
> is to
ge-
> From: Levi Pearson [mailto:levipear...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 1:46 PM
> To: Rodney Cummings
> Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers ; Vinicius
> Costa Gomes ; Henrik Austad ;
> richardcoch...@gmail.com; jesus.sanchez-palen...@intel.com;
> andre.gue...
Hi Rodney,
Some archives seem to have threaded it, but I have CC'd the
participants I saw in the original discussion thread since they may
not otherwise notice it amongst the normal traffic.
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Rodney Cummings wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am posting my reply to this thread af
Hi,
I am posting my reply to this thread after subscribing, so I apologize
if the archive happens to attach it to the wrong thread.
First, I'd like to say that I strongly support this RFC.
We need Linux interfaces for IEEE 802.1 TSN features.
Although I haven't looked in detail, the proposal fo
Hi,
On 09/19/2017 10:49 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
(...)
>
> No, that is not what I meant. We need some minimal additional kernel
> support in order to fully implement the TSN family of standards. Of
> course, the bulk will have to be done in user space. It would be a
> mistake to cram the s
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 05:19:18PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> (I think LaunchTime is something specific to the i210, right?)
Levi just told us:
Recent SoCs from NXP (the i.MX 6 SoloX, and all the i.MX 7 and 8
parts) support Qav shaping as well as scheduled launch
functionality;
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 07:59:11PM -0600, levipear...@gmail.com wrote:
> If some endpoint device shows up with direct Qbv support, this interface would
> probably work well there too, although a talker would need to be able to
> schedule its transmits pretty precisely to achieve the lowest possible
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:17:54PM -0600, levipear...@gmail.com wrote:
> In addition to OpenAvnu, Renesas has a number of github repositories with
> what looks like a fairly
> complete media streaming system:
Is it a generic stack or a set of hacks for their HW?
> Although your SO_TXTIME proposa
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 05:19:18PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> One of the problems with OpenAVNU is that it's too coupled with the i210
> NIC. One of the things we want is to decouple OpenAVNU from the
> controller.
Yes, I want that, too.
> The way we thought best was to propose interfac
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017, Richard Cochran wrote:
> Just for the record, here is my score card showing the current status
> of TSN support in Linux. Comments and corrections are more welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
>
> | FEATURE| STANDARD|
> STA
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:26:20PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patchset is an RFC on a proposal of how the Traffic Control subsystem can
> be used to offload the configuration of traffic shapers into network devices
> that provide support for them in HW. Our goal here is to
Hi Richard,
Richard Cochran writes:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 04:06:28PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> That's the point, the application does not need to know that, and asking
>> that would be stupid.
>
> On the contrary, this information is essential to the application.
> Probably you h
Hi all,
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 07:22:44AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 04:06:28PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> > That's the point, the application does not need to know that, and asking
> > that would be stupid.
>
> On the contrary, this information is essentia
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 04:06:28PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> That's the point, the application does not need to know that, and asking
> that would be stupid.
On the contrary, this information is essential to the application.
Probably you have never seen an actual Ethernet field bus in
o
Hi Richard,
Richard Cochran writes:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:26:20PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> * Time-aware shaper (802.1Qbv):
>
> I just posted a working alternative showing how to handle 802.1Qbv and
> many other Ethernet field buses.
>
>>The idea we are currently explorin
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:02:14AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:26:20PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> > * Time-aware shaper (802.1Qbv):
>
> I just posted a working alternative showing how to handle 802.1Qbv and
> many other Ethernet field buses.
Yes, I saw th
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:26:20PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> This patchset is an RFC on a proposal of how the Traffic Control subsystem can
> be used to offload the configuration of traffic shapers into network devices
> that provide support for them in HW. Our goal here is to start upst
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:26:20PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> * Time-aware shaper (802.1Qbv):
I just posted a working alternative showing how to handle 802.1Qbv and
many other Ethernet field buses.
>The idea we are currently exploring is to add a "time-aware", priority
> based
>
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 06:29:00PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> >> * Time-aware shaper (802.1Qbv):
> >>
> >>The idea we are currently exploring is to add a "time-aware", priority
> >> based
> >>qdisc, that also exposes the Tx queues available and provides a
> >> mechanism for
> >
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 07:58:53PM +, Guedes, Andre wrote:
> Hi Henrik,
>
> Thanks for your feedback! I'll address some of your comments below.
>
> On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 07:34 +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > > As for the shapers config interface:
> > >
> > > * CBS (802.1Qav)
> > >
> > >
Henrik Austad writes:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:26:20PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patchset is an RFC on a proposal of how the Traffic Control subsystem
>> can
>> be used to offload the configuration of traffic shapers into network devices
>> that provide support for
On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 18:18 +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 05:53:15PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 05:27:51PM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 02:40:18PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > > And if you want to this driver t
Hi Henrik,
Thanks for your feedback! I'll address some of your comments below.
On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 07:34 +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > As for the shapers config interface:
> >
> > * CBS (802.1Qav)
> >
> > This patchset is proposing a new qdisc called 'cbs'. Its 'tc' cmd line
> > is:
> >
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 05:53:15PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 05:27:51PM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 02:40:18PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > And if you want to this driver to act as a bridge, how do you accomodate
> > change in network
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 05:27:51PM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 02:40:18PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> And if you want to this driver to act as a bridge, how do you accomodate
> change in network requirements? (i.e. how does this work with switchdev?)
To my understand
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 02:40:18PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 07:34:11AM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > Also, does this mean that when you create the qdisc, you have locked the
> > bandwidth for the scheduler? Meaning, if I later want to add another
> > stream that r
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 07:34:11AM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> Also, does this mean that when you create the qdisc, you have locked the
> bandwidth for the scheduler? Meaning, if I later want to add another
> stream that requires more bandwidth, I have to close all active streams,
> reconfigur
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:26:20PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patchset is an RFC on a proposal of how the Traffic Control subsystem can
> be used to offload the configuration of traffic shapers into network devices
> that provide support for them in HW. Our goal here is to s
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 09:12:17AM -0700, Jesus Sanchez-Palencia wrote:
> On 09/01/2017 06:03 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > The timing of this RFC is good, as I am just finishing up an RFC that
> > implements time-based transmit using the i210. I'll try and get that
> > out ASAP.
I have an RFC s
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 09:12:17AM -0700, Jesus Sanchez-Palencia wrote:
> Is it correct to assume you are referring to an interface for Launchtime here?
Yes.
Thanks,
Richard
Hi Richard,
On 09/01/2017 06:03 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
>
> I happy to see this posted. At first glance, it seems like a step in
> the right direction.
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:26:20PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> * Time-aware shaper (802.1Qbv):
> ...
>>S 0x01 300
>>
I happy to see this posted. At first glance, it seems like a step in
the right direction.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:26:20PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> * Time-aware shaper (802.1Qbv):
...
>S 0x01 300
>S 0x03 500
>
>This means that there are two intervals, the first will h
Hi,
This patchset is an RFC on a proposal of how the Traffic Control subsystem can
be used to offload the configuration of traffic shapers into network devices
that provide support for them in HW. Our goal here is to start upstreaming
support for features related to the Time-Sensitive Networking (
38 matches
Mail list logo
