[Netnice-kernels] Re: netnice on linux

[Takashi O. <ta...@wi...>]

kartikey bhatt wrote:
> 
> Before I commit my further patches I'd like to ask you a few questions 
> regarding netnice in particular and on linux.
> 
> 1. Is it really necessary that we allow fine grain control over sockets 
> too? I mean whether each individual socket should have its own 
> association to vifs? What I am doing is rather than associating vifs to 
> each socket , i am associating the vif to process only and the so_vifnet 
> in socket is a pointer to the list of associated vifs of the process. 
> And this way the system is more consistent.

how can we control sockets, in the scheme? we may want to control
independent connections, or, may want to prioritize some sockets
(interactive ones) among others (bulk data transfer), in a process.

one of our advantage is flexible control granularity with hierarchical
resource management scheme, realized by the VIF structure. i cannot
see any merit in your suggestion. what do you mean by the word,
"consistent"?

> 2. I am enforcing that each process should have at least (and at most) 
> one vif associated with the real net_device (ifnet in FreeBSD 
> terminology). So a process cannot have more than "1" or less than "1" 
> vif associated with eth0 at any given time. Whenever a process creates a 
> vif, I am not allocating a new p_vifnet rather I am modifying the 
> p_vifnet that is already associated with the vif that connects process 
> to the real net_device (interface). When a process deletes the vif it 
> simply reverts the p_vifnet to the vif that was associated with it 
> before the creation of new vif.

can you give us a simple figure, describing each scheme?

you may use (modify) the following page, and upload a GIF file there,
to save mail traffic.

	http://www.netnice.org/pukiwiki-e.php?kartikey%27s%20note

thanks,

-- taka