> >>
> >> 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?
Yes, but we don't have containers support yet.
