linuxptp-users

[Linuxptp-users] Question about hardware receive filter mode

[Ledda W. E. <Wil...@it...>]

Hi all,
I was querying timestamp capabilities of an interface with ethtool -T and I found the following

Hardware Receive Filter Modes:
                none                  (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE)
                all                   (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL)
                ptpv1-l4-sync         (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_SYNC)
                ptpv1-l4-delay-req    (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_DELAY_REQ)
                ptpv2-l4-sync         (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L4_SYNC)
                ptpv2-l4-delay-req    (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L4_DELAY_REQ)
                ptpv2-l2-sync         (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_SYNC)
                ptpv2-l2-delay-req    (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_DELAY_REQ)
                ptpv2-event           (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT)
                ptpv2-sync            (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_SYNC)
                ptpv2-delay-req       (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_DELAY_REQ)


I'm curios to understand the meaning of the different filters in particular those related to PTP. Can I found some benefit from  them? I mean... if an interface with those filter is "better" than one that doesn't has them?

Thank you

William

Re: [Linuxptp-users] Question about hardware receive filter mode

[Keller, J. E <jac...@in...>]

On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 09:16 +0000, Ledda William EXT wrote:
> Hi all, 
> 
> I was querying timestamp capabilities of an interface with ethtool -T
> and I found the following
> 
>  
> 
> Hardware Receive Filter Modes:
> 
>                 none                  (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE)
> 
>                 all                   (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL)
> 
>                 ptpv1-l4-sync         (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_SYNC)
> 
>                 ptpv1-l4-delay-req    (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_DELAY_REQ)
> 
>                 ptpv2-l4-sync         (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L4_SYNC)
> 
>                 ptpv2-l4-delay-req    (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L4_DELAY_REQ)
> 
>                 ptpv2-l2-sync         (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_SYNC)
> 
>                 ptpv2-l2-delay-req    (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_DELAY_REQ)
> 
>                 ptpv2-event           (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT)
> 
>                 ptpv2-sync            (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_SYNC)
> 
>                 ptpv2-delay-req       (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_DELAY_REQ)
> 
>  
> 

The above filters are just all the available ones. The 'good' filter is
ptpv2-event and all. The peer delay and request filters aren't even
listed here! (You can see how old and crummy the hwtstamp_ioctl
interface is....)

Essentially you only need ptpv2-event to support timestamping the
correct list. If you're in slave only mode you need to be able to
timestamp only sync (and peer messages in P2P mode). But having extra
filters doesn't really buy anything as if you can timestamp ptpv2-event
packets you can timestamp any packet needed by ptp4l.

The other filters are available as historically the interface supported
them, even if it wasn't really useful.

Regards,
Jake

> 
>  
> 
> I’m curios to understand the meaning of the different filters in
> particular those related to PTP. Can I found some benefit from  them?
> I mean… if an interface with those filter is “better” than one that
> doesn’t has them?
> 
>  

As long as the interface has ptpv2-event it is consistently more useful
than an interface which does not. However the other filters are not
useful (IMHO).

Ofcourse timestamp all packets is the most useful.

> 
> Thank you 
> 
>  
> 
> William
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT 
> organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance 
> affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your 
> Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxptp-users mailing list
> Lin...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users

Re: [Linuxptp-users] Question about hardware receive filter mode

[Richard C. <ric...@gm...>]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 09:43:47PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
 
> The other filters are available as historically the interface supported
> them, even if it wasn't really useful.

The various filters correspond to the available modes in early time
stamping hardware implementations.

As Jake said, only the "all event" filter is interesting. In ptp4l, we
try to use

    HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT,

but we fall back to

   HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L4_EVENT, or
   HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_EVENT

depending on the transport. We never use any other filter.

HTH,
Richard