[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84621a61003241255i74282f53v3bb0111808895401@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:55:28 -0500
From: Brandon Black <blblack@...il.com>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: behavior of recvmmsg() on blocking sockets
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com> wrote:
> Note that I said "large numbers of sockets". Like tens of thousands.
> In addition to context switch overhead this can also lead to issues with
> memory consumption due to stack frames.
Ok, agreed there. In my case though, there will only ever be a
handful of sockets. Ideally it would be just one socket. The only
reason I allocate multiple sockets and spawn threads for them is
because you can't scale past one CPU core on a single socket, due to
the NIC and/or the driver and/or the socket locks and/or the basic
nature of the problem.
> Consider the case where you want to do some other useful work in
> addition to running your network server. Every cpu cycle spent on the
> network server is robbed from the other work. In this scenario you want
> to handle packets as efficiently as possible, so the timeout-based
> behaviour is better since it is more likely to give you multiple packets
> per syscall.
That's a good point, I tend to tunnelvision on the dedicated server
scenario. I should probably have a user-level option for
timeout-based operation as well, since the decision here gets to the
systems admin/engineering level and will be situational.
Thanks,
-- Brandon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists