On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:11:57PM +0100, Billy O'Mahony wrote: > Signed-off-by: Billy O'Mahony <billy.o.mah...@intel.com> > --- > Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > vswitchd/vswitch.ovsschema | 9 +++++++-- > vswitchd/vswitch.xml | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst b/Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst > index 79b626c..fca353a 100644 > --- a/Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst > +++ b/Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst > @@ -237,6 +237,24 @@ respective parameter. To disable the flow control at tx > side, run:: > > $ ovs-vsctl set Interface dpdk-p0 options:tx-flow-ctrl=false > > +Ingress Scheduling > +------------------ > + > +The ingress scheduling feature is described in general in > +``ovs-vswitchd.conf.db (5)``. > + > +Ingress scheduling currently only supports setting a priority for incoming > +packets for an entire interface. Priority levels 0 (lowest) to 3 (highest) > are > +supported. The default priority is 0. > + > +Interfaces of type ``dpdk`` and ``dpdkvhostuserclient`` support ingress > +scheduling. > + > +To prioritize packets on a particular port: > + > + $ ovs-vsctl set Interface dpdk0 \ > + ingress_sched=port_prio=3
I'm happy to see experimentation in this area. But, since it is specified to particular kinds of interfaces, and because it is likely to evolve in the future, I think I would prefer to see it defined in term of the interface-type-specific "options" field. Does that make sense? Thanks, Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
