On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Liang, Kan <kan.li...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>> >> 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.
>>
>> I don't read the code yet, just the cover letter.
>>
>> We have global tunings, per-network-namespace tunings, per-socket tunings.
>> It is still unclear why you can't just put different applications into
>> different
>> namespaces/containers to get different policies.
>
> In NET policy, we do per queue tunings.
Is it possible to isolate NIC queues for containers?
