From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ns.iliad.fr (ns.iliad.fr [212.27.33.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A31A3B2A4 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 17:59:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns.iliad.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns.iliad.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBBEE202C7; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 23:59:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sakura (freebox.vlq16.iliad.fr [213.36.7.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ns.iliad.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE44D20289; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 23:59:55 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 23:59:54 +0200 From: Maxime Bizon To: Toke =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= Cc: Dave Taht , Cake List Message-ID: <20200423215954.GN28541@sakura> References: <603DFF79-D0C0-41BD-A2FB-E40B95A9CBB0@gmail.com> <20200423092909.GC28541@sakura> <87o8ri76u2.fsf@toke.dk> <20200423123329.GG28541@sakura> <877dy66tng.fsf@toke.dk> <20200423173111.GL28541@sakura> <871roe6of0.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <871roe6of0.fsf@toke.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP ; ns.iliad.fr ; Thu Apr 23 23:59:55 2020 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [Cake] Advantages to tightly tuning latency X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 21:59:56 -0000 On Thursday 23 Apr 2020 à 20:35:15 (+0200), Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > I meant more details of your SOC platform. You already said it's > ARM-based, so I guess the most important missing piece is which (Linux) > driver does the Ethernet device(s) use? - Marvell Kirkwood, mv643xx_eth driver - Marvell A8k, mvpp2 driver > Yup, I think so. What does your current solution do with packets that > are destined for the WiFi interface, BTW? Just punt them to the regular > kernel path? yes, but that won't fly anymore for 11ax rates -- Maxime