[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:05:45 -0800
From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Tolga Ceylan <tolga.ceylan@...il.com>,
Aaron Conole <aconole@...heb.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: Add SO_REUSEPORT_LISTEN_OFF socket option as
drain mode
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 21:41 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> Tolga, are you still planning to respin this patch (when tree opens?)
>
> I was planning to add an union on skc_tx_queue_mapping and
> sk_max_ack_backlog, so that adding a check on sk_max_ack_backlog in
> listener lookup would not add an additional cache line miss.
>
> This would remove false sharing because sk_ack_backlog is often dirtied
> when a socket is added into accept queue.
>
That's sounds like good fixes, but my question was more about the
problem originally described by Tolga where we are transitioning
processing for a listener port from one process to another. I think
the conclusion in this thread was to modify the code so that
listen(fd, 0) would stop new connections from being assigned to a
socket (as opposed to explicit SO_REUSEPORT_LISTEN_OFF option). Does
this still seem reasonable?
Tom
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists