←back to thread

256 points BSDobelix | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
usr1106 ◴[] No.42163756[source]
Interesting. But if tuning parameters to their best values were easy, shouldn't the kernel just do that in the first place?
replies(5): >>42163778 #>>42163824 #>>42163880 #>>42164567 #>>42167444 #
RandomThoughts3 ◴[] No.42163880[source]
I would reverse the question: if it can be done by a BPF module, why should it be in the kernel?

Distributions turning it on by default is another story. Maybe it deserves to be shiped on all the time but that's not the same thing as being part of the kernel.

replies(1): >>42164008 #
1. jiehong ◴[] No.42164008[source]
Indeed!

The kernel might already be too monolithic.

This kernel parameters optimisation reminds me of PGO compilation in programs.

Yet, perhaps the kernel could come with multiple defaults config files, each being a good base for different workloads: server, embedded, laptop, mobile, database, router, etc.

replies(1): >>42166453 #
2. 6SixTy ◴[] No.42166453[source]
I second the different profiles for server, laptop, and so on. Though I know the kernel already comes with default configs, so I think there could be room for specialized kernel config options in addition to what's already there.

Though in my opinion, there's already kind of too much segmentation between the different use cases. A server is just a role for a computer, and embedded could literally mean anything. Quite a few WiFi access points come with a USB port on them so you can plug in a USB drive and start a SMB server.