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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:36:23 +0200
From:	Remi Denis-Courmont <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: Killing sk->sk_callback_lock


On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:40:41 -0700 (PDT), David Miller
<> wrote:
>> The task can go directly back into a wait. This will effectively yield 2
>> wake ups per udp request-response.
> I made the mistake of assuming that a high performance threaded
> networking application would use non-blocking operations and
> select/poll/epoll, which is clearly not the case here.
> It's blocking in a recv() and this is woken up by a write space
> extraneous wakeup.

With UDP, I have consistently gotten significantly (IIRC around 30%) better
results using plain recv()/send() on blocking sockets than
poll()/recv()/send() on non-blocking sockets, on Linux, on the fast path.
Of course, this assumes there is only one socket per thread. Namely, using
my Teredo IPv6 userland implementation.

You are surely in a better position than I can ever be as to explaining why
this is so, and how bad and wrong my approach may be. Nevertheless my guess
has been the system call overhead is simply higher when adding poll() to
recv() and send().

RĂ©mi Denis-Courmont

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists