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
37 matches
Mail list logo
