[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160718154512.GK5871@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:45:12 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc: kan.liang@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
jmorris@...ei.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, gorcunov@...nvz.org,
john.stultz@...aro.org, aduyck@...antis.com, ben@...adent.org.uk,
decot@...glers.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Kernel NET policy
> It seems strange to me to add such policies to the kernel.
> Addmittingly, documentation of some settings is non-existent and one needs
> various different tools to set this (sysctl, procfs, sysfs, ethtool, etc).
The problem is that different applications need different policies.
The only entity which can efficiently negotiate between different
applications' conflicting requests is the kernel. And that is pretty
much the basic job description of a kernel: multiplex hardware
efficiently between different users.
So yes the user space tuning approach works for simple cases
("only run workloads that require the same tuning"), but is ultimately not
very interesting nor scalable.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists