[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] Traffic control cgroups subsystem
    * Ranjit Manomohan <> 2008-09-10 13:44
    > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:22 PM, David Miller <> wrote:
    > >
    > > I definitely prefer Thomas Graf's work, this stuff is very ugly
    > > and way overengineered.
    > >
    > Could you be more specific? Thomas' work is almost identical to this
    > (except that he does not store the cgroup id into the socket which is
    > a trivial change which has downsides which I have pointed out).
    > Additionally this approach has only minor modifications to the core
    > networking stack. What portions do you consider ugly and over
    > engineered and what alternative implementations would you prefer?
    > Please see the follow up I have sent to Thomas' proposal about why we
    > need this design approach to handle the inbound case.

    WRT the inbound case, after some experiments I decided to dismiss the
    ingress case at all and stick to something as simple as possible for
    egress. The reason for this is that it is a very expensive operation
    to associate a packet with a task on classifier level. Taking this
    cost, it does not add up with the very limited capabilities of ingress
    shaping. Ingress shaping is best effort at best. It works fairly well
    with a very limited number of bulk data streams but usualy fails
    miserably in common congestion situations where a cgroup classifier
    would be useful.

    > I'd be ok if you accepted either change since we just want a standard
    > kernel mechanism to do this.

    Agreed. I think your approach is very reasonable but considering the
    reasons I've given above and in the other thread I found it could be done
    in a more simple and direct way.

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-09-11 00:15    [W:0.027 / U:42.628 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site