Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2022 17:00:05 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
Cc:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Toke =?UTF-8?B?SMO4aWxhbmQtSsO4cmdlbnNlbg==?= <toke@toke.dk>,
        Avi Stern <avraham.stern@intel.com>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: taprio vs. wireless/mac80211
Message-ID: <20220826170005.79392041@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <87k06uk65f.fsf@intel.com>
References: <117aa7ded81af97c7440a9bfdcdf287de095c44f.camel@sipsolutions.net>
        <20220824191500.6f4e3fb7@kernel.org>
        <87k06uk65f.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 15:10:36 -0700 Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 23:50:18 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:  
> >> Anyone have recommendations what we should do?  
> >
> > Likely lack of sleep or intelligence on my side but I could not grok
> > from the email what the stacking is, and what the goal is.
> >
> > Are you putting taprio inside mac80211, or leaving it at the netdev
> > layer but taking the fq/codel out?  
> 
> My read was that they want to do something with taprio with wireless
> devices and were hit by the current limitation that taprio only supports
> multiqueue interfaces.
> 
> The fq/codel part is that, as far as I know, there's already a fq/codel
> implementation inside mac80211.
> 
> The stacking seems to be that packets would be scheduled by taprio and
> then by the scheduler inside mac80211 (fq/codel based?).

Doesn't adding another layer of non-time-aware queuing after taprio
completely defeat its purpose?  Perhaps I'm revealing my lack of
understanding too much..