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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists