mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@google.com>
To: "Thomas Graf" <tgraf@suug.ch>
Cc: "Ranjit Manomohan" <ranjitm@google.com>,
	davem@davemloft.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kaber@trash.net,
	lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Traffic control cgroups subsystem
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:51:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6599ad830809101651u79a0efb7y8fa7288de6e48c8a@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080910234523.GK20815@postel.suug.ch>

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch> wrote:
>
> That's argueable I guess. Likely or not, it doesn't make sense to
> add such restrictions if not required, especially not when it is
> trivial to just look at the cgroup of the task directly.

Isn't a very large fraction of outgoing network traffic driven from
net_tx_action(), which doesn't execute in the context of the sending
process? Or am I missing something?

You claimed "In the most common case, the packet is not queued before
it hits the qdisc so this takes away a lot of complexity and is very
fast but should still be sufficient.". But is that really true on a
system where the network is busy? (Which is after all exactly the case
where you care about accurate traffic accounting/policing)

Paul

  reply	other threads:[~2008-09-10 23:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-09-10 17:42 Ranjit Manomohan
2008-09-10 22:01 ` Thomas Graf
2008-09-10 22:56   ` Ranjit Manomohan
2008-09-10 23:00     ` David Miller
2008-09-10 23:14       ` Ranjit Manomohan
2008-09-10 23:04     ` Paul Menage
2008-09-10 23:24       ` Thomas Graf
2008-09-10 23:31         ` Paul Menage
2008-09-10 23:45           ` Thomas Graf
2008-09-10 23:51             ` Paul Menage [this message]
2008-09-11  0:07               ` Thomas Graf
2008-09-11  0:09                 ` Paul Menage
2008-09-10 23:53             ` Paul Menage
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-08-22  0:55 Ranjit Manomohan
2008-08-22  2:11 ` Li Zefan
2008-07-24 23:35 Ranjit Manomohan
2008-07-18 21:28 Ranjit Manomohan
2008-07-21  9:26 ` Li Zefan
2008-07-21 14:04 ` Patrick McHardy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=6599ad830809101651u79a0efb7y8fa7288de6e48c8a@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=menage@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=kaber@trash.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ranjitm@google.com \
    --cc=tgraf@suug.ch \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®