On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 12:28, Miroslav Lichvar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:30:33AM +0200, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
> > ptp4l supports setting of socket priority. This is useful for traffic
> shaping
> > e.g., utilizing Tx steering using TAPRIO or mqprio Qdisc or VLAN egress
> > mappings.
> >
> > However, that's only implemented for Layer 2 transport. Extend this for
> UDPv4
> > and UDPv6 transports. Update the man page accordingly.
>
> It makes sense to me.
>
> > @@ -196,6 +196,19 @@ static int udp_open(struct transport *t, struct
> interface *iface,
> > pr_warning("Failed to set general DSCP priority.");
> > }
> >
> > + socket_priority = config_get_int(t->cfg, "global",
> "socket_priority");
> > +
> > + if (socket_priority &&
> > + setsockopt(efd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PRIORITY, &socket_priority,
> > + sizeof(socket_priority))) {
> > + pr_warning("Failed to set event socket priority.");
> > + }
> > + if (socket_priority &&
> > + setsockopt(gfd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PRIORITY, &socket_priority,
> > + sizeof(socket_priority))) {
> > + pr_warning("Failed to set general socket priority.");
>
> Is it useful to set the priority for non-event messages? Their timing
> is not so important and there can be a lot of traffic generated
> remotely (e.g. management messages).
>
As I understand, the traffic is low.
Anyway, as it is a socket option.
You would need an additional socket.
Is it really worth having multiple sockets?
>
> --
> Miroslav Lichvar
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxptp-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
