[Intel-wired-lan] [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

Jakub Kicinski kuba at kernel.org
Mon May 18 23:09:06 UTC 2020


On Mon, 18 May 2020 16:05:08 -0700 Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba at kernel.org> writes:
> >> That was the (only?) strong argument in favor of having frame preemption
> >> in the TC side when this was last discussed.
> >> 
> >> We can have a hybrid solution, we can move the express/preemptible per
> >> queue map to mqprio/taprio/whatever. And have the more specific
> >> configuration knobs, minimum fragment size, etc, in ethtool.
> >> 
> >> What do you think?  
> >
> > Does the standard specify minimum fragment size as a global MAC setting?  
> 
> Yes, it's a per-MAC setting, not per-queue. 

If standard defines it as per-MAC and we can reasonably expect vendors
won't try to "add value" and make it per queue (unlikely here AFAIU),
then for this part ethtool configuration seems okay to me.


More information about the Intel-wired-lan mailing list