[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1339750318.7491.70.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:51:58 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Li Yu <raise.sail@...il.com>
Cc: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
davidel@...ilserver.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce to batch variants of accept() and epoll_ctl()
syscall
On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 13:37 +0800, Li Yu wrote:
> Of course, I think that implementing them should not be a hard work :)
>
> Em. I really do not know whether it is necessary to introduce to a new
> syscall here. An alternative solution to add new socket option to handle
> such batch requirement, so applications also can detect if kernel has
> this extended ability with a easy getsockopt() call.
>
> Any way, I am going to try to write a prototype first.
Before that, could you post the result of "perf top", or "perf
record ...;perf report"
> The top shows the kernel is most cpu hog, the testing is simple,
> just a accept() -> epoll_ctl(ADD) loop, the ratio of cpu util sys% to
> si% is about 2:5.
This ratio is not meaningful, if we dont know where time is spent.
I doubt epoll_ctl(ADD) is a problem here...
If it is, batching the fds wont speed the thing anyway...
I believe accept() is the problem here, because it contends with the
softirq processing the tcp session handshake.
--
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