From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751940AbcGRQRn (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:17:43 -0400 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([80.244.247.6]:51358 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751451AbcGRQRl (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:17:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:17:28 +0200 From: Florian Westphal To: "Liang, Kan" Cc: Florian Westphal , "davem@davemloft.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "peterz@infradead.org" , "kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru" , "jmorris@namei.org" , "yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org" , "kaber@trash.net" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "keescook@chromium.org" , "viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" , "gorcunov@openvz.org" , "john.stultz@linaro.org" , "aduyck@mirantis.com" , "ben@decadent.org.uk" , "decot@googlers.com" , "Brandeburg, Jesse" , "andi@firstfloor.org" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Kernel NET policy Message-ID: <20160718161728.GB19066@breakpoint.cc> References: <1468824984-65318-1-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> <20160718151841.GA19066@breakpoint.cc> <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F07712C1968E@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F07712C1968E@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Liang, Kan wrote: > > What is missing in the kernel UAPI so userspace could do these settings on its > > own, without adding this policy stuff to the kernel? > > The main purpose of the proposal is to simplify the configuration. Too many > options will let them confuse. > For normal users, they just need to tell the kernel that they want high throughput > for the application. The kernel will take care of the rest. > So, I don't think we need an interface for user to set their own policy settings. I don't (yet) agree that the kernel is the right place for this. I agree that current (bare) kernel config interface(s) for this are hard to use. > > It seems strange to me to add such policies to the kernel. > > But kernel is the only place which can merge all user's requests. I don't think so. If different requests conflict in a way that is possible to do something meaningful the I don't see why userspace tool cannot do the same thing... > > Addmittingly, documentation of some settings is non-existent and one needs > > various different tools to set this (sysctl, procfs, sysfs, ethtool, etc). > > > > But all of these details could be hidden from user. > > Have you looked at tuna for instance? > > Not yet. Is there similar settings for network? Last time I checked tuna could only set a few network-related sysctls and handle irq settings/affinity, but not e.g. tune irq coalescening or any other network interface specific settings.