From: Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@nxp.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"frieder.schrempf@kontron.de" <frieder.schrempf@kontron.de>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC net-next 2/2] net: fec: add ndo_select_queue to fix TX bandwidth fluctuations
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 02:06:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DB8PR04MB6795791CE3D45D49B7FEB84BE6249@DB8PR04MB6795.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YK0Ce5YxR2WYbrAo@lunn.ch>
Hi Andrew,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
> Sent: 2021年5月25日 21:58
> To: Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@nxp.com>
> Cc: davem@davemloft.net; kuba@kernel.org; frieder.schrempf@kontron.de;
> netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; dl-linux-imx
> <linux-imx@nxp.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 2/2] net: fec: add ndo_select_queue to fix TX
> bandwidth fluctuations
>
> > > On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 06:20:19PM +0800, Joakim Zhang wrote:
> > > > From: Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@nxp.com>
> > > >
> > > > As we know that AVB is enabled by default, and the ENET IP design
> > > > is queue 0 for best effort, queue 1&2 for AVB Class A&B. Bandwidth
> > > > of queue 1&2 set in driver is 50%, TX bandwidth fluctuated when
> > > > selecting tx queues randomly with FEC_QUIRK_HAS_AVB quirk available.
> > >
> > > How is the driver currently scheduling between these queues? Given
> > > the 802.1q priorities, i think we want queue 2 with the highest
> > > priority for scheduling. Then queue 0 and lastly queue 1.
> >
> > I think currently there is no schedule between these queues in the driver.
>
> So queues 1 and 2 are limited to 50% the total bandwidth, but are otherwise
> not prioritised over queue 0? That sounds odd.
No, when enable AVB (configured as Credit-based scheme), queue 0 is best effort, queue 1 is limited to 50% bandwidth, queue 2 is also limited to 50% bandwidth.
I may misunderstand to you, what I mean is that there is no scheduler from software level, Net core calls netdev_pick_tx() to select a queue. From the hardware level, schedule with Credit-based.
> > Could you please point me where I can find mapping between priorities and
> queues? You prefer to below mapping?
> > static const u16 fec_enet_vlan_pri_to_queue[8] = {1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 2,
> > 2};
>
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip
> edia.org%2Fwiki%2FIEEE_P802.1p&data=04%7C01%7Cqiangqing.zhang%
> 40nxp.com%7C30d975f09a79446030d608d91f852c39%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa
> 92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637575479097053920%7CUnknown%7CTWF
> pbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVC
> I6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=g6WxJJVXLbaX3QWBq3yB4fk1Zh4tN%2Ff8Y
> w%2FAATabL%2Bg%3D&reserved=0
Err, this link isn't available at my side. It's seems 802.1q spec.
> I'm not sure i actually believe the hardware does not prioritise the queues. It
> seems to me, it is more likely to take frames from queues 1 and 2 if they have
> not consumed their 50% share.
Hardware xmits with Credit-based scheme.
> PCP value 0 is best effort. That should really be given the same priority as a
> packet without a VLAN header. Which is why i suggested putting those packets
> into queue 0.
Make sense.
> Also, if the hardware is performing prioritisation, PCP value 1, background,
> when put into queue 1 will end up as higher priority then best effort?
I don't think so, Credit-based scheduler would schedule based on credit, not the PCP filed.
Best Regards,
Joakim Zhang
>
> Andrew
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-26 2:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-23 10:20 [RFC net-next 0/2] net: fec: fix TX bandwidth fluctuations Joakim Zhang
2021-05-23 10:20 ` [RFC net-next 1/2] net: fec: add FEC_QUIRK_HAS_MULTI_QUEUES represents i.MX6SX ENET IP Joakim Zhang
2021-05-23 10:20 ` [RFC net-next 2/2] net: fec: add ndo_select_queue to fix TX bandwidth fluctuations Joakim Zhang
2021-05-23 14:38 ` Andrew Lunn
2021-05-25 9:44 ` Joakim Zhang
2021-05-23 14:46 ` Andrew Lunn
2021-05-25 9:46 ` Joakim Zhang
2021-05-25 13:58 ` Andrew Lunn
2021-05-26 2:06 ` Joakim Zhang [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=DB8PR04MB6795791CE3D45D49B7FEB84BE6249@DB8PR04MB6795.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com \
--to=qiangqing.zhang@nxp.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=frieder.schrempf@kontron.de \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-imx@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).