>
> 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.
Thanks,
Kan
