Network Switch Circuit Priority Queue Segmentation
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing network switches struggle with efficient prioritization of data packets, particularly in vehicle communication systems, where high-priority control-data traffic is sensitive to latency, and current solutions often require complex protocols and additional circuitry, leading to susceptibility to failure and increased costs.
Innovation Solution
A two-stage prioritization scheme is implemented using multiple queues, where data packets are assigned to high-priority or low-priority groups based on their traffic class and MAC address, allowing for granular prioritization and sorting to minimize latency and reduce processor busy waits.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If a FIFO methodology is used to allocate data packets, then the allocation is simple and follows first-come-first-served order, but high-priority control-data traffic experiences increased latency and cannot be prioritized over low-priority traffic
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the single FIFO queue into multiple priority-based queues (e.g., high-priority queue and low-priority queue). This segmentation allows the system to differentiate between critical control-data traffic and non-critical traffic, ensuring that high-priority packets are transmitted first without being blocked by low-priority packets, thereby reducing latency for time-sensitive communications.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the allocation parameter from a single FIFO order to multiple priority levels. By introducing priority as a new parameter for queue selection, the system can dynamically select which queue to service based on the urgency of the data, transforming the static FIFO allocation into a dynamic priority-based allocation mechanism that reduces latency for critical traffic.
2Reliability
If complex protocols and additional communications circuits are used to achieve priority allocation, then data packet prioritization can be implemented, but the device complexity increases and susceptibility to failure increases
Solution Approach 1:
Instead of implementing complex priority protocols, the patent segments the transmission medium into multiple logical queues based on priority levels. This segmentation approach simplifies the control logic by using straightforward queue management rather than complex protocol handshaking, reducing device complexity while maintaining reliable priority allocation.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent enables packets to self-identify their priority level through inherent packet headers or classification mechanisms, eliminating the need for complex external protocol negotiations. Each packet carries its own priority information, allowing the system to automatically route it to the appropriate queue without requiring complex control circuits or protocol processing.
3Loss of time
If multiple queues are used for priority allocation, then high-priority traffic can be transmitted first, but the queue management complexity and processor busy waits increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments queues into a limited number of priority levels (e.g., 2-4 queues rather than numerous fine-grained queues). This segmentation strikes a balance between providing sufficient priority differentiation for control-data traffic while keeping queue management complexity manageable. The segmented approach reduces processor busy waits by limiting the number of queues that need to be monitored and serviced.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the queue management approach by using priority-based selection criteria rather than complex round-robin or weight-based scheduling. This parameter change simplifies the queue management logic to a straightforward priority comparison, reducing processor overhead and busy waits while still achieving low latency for high-priority traffic.
4Productivity
If priority allocation is implemented without granular sorting, then the system is simpler, but the prioritization granularity is insufficient for fine-tuned control of different data packets
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the prioritization process into two stages: first segmenting packets into broad priority queues, then applying granular sorting within each queue based on secondary criteria (such as destination address or packet type). This two-stage segmentation provides fine-tuned prioritization granularity without requiring complex single-stage sorting circuitry, as each stage handles a specific aspect of priority differentiation.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent adds another dimension to priority allocation by implementing sorting within queues based on secondary criteria (such as destination MAC address). This dimensional approach transforms single-dimensional priority allocation into multi-dimensional prioritization, enabling fine-grained control over packet transmission order while keeping the base queue structure simple and manageable.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3A
AI summary
Data packets are received from a plurality of communication nodes within a local Ethernet network, the data packets including a media access control address ("MAC address") are indicative of a destination and a data packet traffic class. Based upon the traffic class of each data packet, each of the received data packets are assigned in to one of the plurality of queues of a memory circuit. Based upon the MAC address of each data packet, the data packets within at least one of the queues are sorted. Each queue is then serviced and the data packets within are transmitted based upon the sorting.