linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Introduce to batch variants of accept() and epoll

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <m2fw9s8aks.fsf@firstfloor.org>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:27:47 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Li Yu <raise.sail@...il.com>, 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

Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> writes:
>
> I believe accept() is the problem here, because it contends with the
> softirq processing the tcp session handshake.

The MOSBENCH people some time ago did a per CPU accept queue. This is
probably overkill, but there are clearly some scaling problems here
with enough cores.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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/