On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 10:37:28AM +0100, Stefan Raspl wrote: >On 2/16/22 16:27, dust.li wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 02:58:32PM +0100, Stefan Raspl wrote: >> > On 2/16/22 04:49, Dust Li wrote: >> > > diff --git a/net/smc/smc_tx.c b/net/smc/smc_tx.c >> > > index 5df3940d4543..bc737ac79805 100644 >> > > --- a/net/smc/smc_tx.c >> > > +++ b/net/smc/smc_tx.c >> > > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ >> > > #include "smc_tracepoint.h" >> > > #define SMC_TX_WORK_DELAY 0 >> > > +#define SMC_DEFAULT_AUTOCORK_SIZE (64 * 1024) >> > >> > Probably a matter of taste, but why not use hex here? >> >> Yeah, I have no option on this, I will change it in the next version. >> But I think it should have no real difference since the compiler >> should do the calculation. > >Agreed - this is just to make it a tiny bit easier to digest. > > >> > Are there any fixed plans to make SMC_DEFAULT_AUTOCORK dynamic...? 'cause >> > otherwise we could simply eliminate this parameter, and use the define within >> > smc_should_autocork() instead. >> >> Yes! Actually I'd like it to be dynamic variable too... >> >> I didn't do it because I also want to add a control switch for the autocork >> feature just like TCP. In that case I need to add 2 variables here. >> But I found adding dynamic variables using netlink would introduce a lot of >> redundant code and may even bring ABI compatibility issues in the future, as >> I mentioned here: >> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220216114618.GA39286@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#mecfcd3f8c816d07dbe35e4748d17008331c89523 >> >> I'm not sure that's the right way to do it. In this case, I prefer using >> sysctl which I think would be easier, but I would like to listen to your advice. > >Extending the Netlink interface should be possible without breaking the API - >we'd be adding further variables, not modifying or removing existing ones. >Conceptually, Netlink is the way to go for any userspace interaction with >SMC, which includes anything config-related. >Now we understand that cloud workloads are a bit different, and the desire to >be able to modify the environment of a container while leaving the container >image unmodified is understandable. But then again, enabling the base image >would be the cloud way to address this. The question to us is: How do other >parts of the kernel address this? I'm not familiar with K8S, but from one of my colleague who has worked in that area tells me for resources like CPU/MEM and configurations like sysctl, can be set using K8S configuration: https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/sysctl-cluster/ I don't know. Maybe because most of the current kernel configurations are configured through sysfs that for those container orchestration systems have supported it ? Thanks
