Liang, Kan <kan.li...@intel.com> 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.
