linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Kernel NET policy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALx6S36vLAEN-ezqm7EHwwGE876troCkDkkQKhsmeTc4VH0E9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:34:52 +0200
From:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Cc:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"kuznet@....inr.ac.ru" <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	"jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	"kaber@...sh.net" <kaber@...sh.net>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
	"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"gorcunov@...nvz.org" <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	"john.stultz@...aro.org" <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	"aduyck@...antis.com" <aduyck@...antis.com>,
	"ben@...adent.org.uk" <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	"decot@...glers.com" <decot@...glers.com>,
	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Kernel NET policy

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Liang, Kan <kan.liang@...el.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> > It is a big challenge to get good network performance. First, the
>> > network performance is not good with default system settings. Second,
>> > it is too difficult to do automatic tuning for all possible workloads,
>> > since workloads have different requirements. Some workloads may want
>> high throughput.
>>
>> Seems you did lots of tests to find optimal settings for a given base policy.
>>
> Yes. Current test only base on Intel i40e driver. The optimal settings should
> vary for other devices. But adding settings for new device is not hard.
>
The optimal settings are very dependent on system architecture (NUMA
config, #cpus, memory, etc.) and sometimes kernel version as well. A
database that provides best configurations across different devices,
architectures, and kernel version might be interesting; but beware
that that is a whole bunch of work to maintain, Either way policy like
this really should be handled in userspace.

Tom