| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:17:07 -0700 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com> Cc: James Yonan <james@...nvpn.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: UDP "accept" proposed On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 11:52 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 06/18/2013 10:48 AM, James Yonan wrote: > [...] > > This is a disaster from a performance perspective because you can't take a UDP server that > > binds to a single port and efficiently scale it up across multiple threads or processors > > because you must operate off a single socket. Well not with current linux ;) > > But this would be a huge performance win for UDP servers (I'm thinking about OpenVPN in > > particular) because making the kernel smarter about dispatching UDP datagrams would make it > > much easier to develop scalable UDP servers on Linux. > > So SO_REUSEPORT that was added in 3.9 by Tom Herbert wouldn't > help in your case (+ f.e. steering flows to CPUs locally) ? > > https://lwn.net/Articles/542629/ Yes, but no need for particular steering. Incoming UDP message will match the 'connected socket' and will be delivered to the socket. RFS will then automatically do the right thing ( Documentation/networking/scaling.txt ) Note that if you have a lot of sockets bound to the same port, this fix is needed : http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git/commit/?id=c87a124a5d5e8cf8e21c4363c3372bcaf53ea190 -- 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