[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1416007946.17262.84.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:32:26 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Ying Cai <ycai@...gle.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: introduce SO_INCOMING_CPU
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 15:03 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> If the kernel had an API for this, I'd be all for using it.
It would be user land code, not kernel.
Why doing a system call when you can avoid it ? ;)
Doing it in the kernel would be quite complex actually.
In userland, you can even implement this by machine learning.
For every connection you made, you get the 4-tuple and INCOMING_CPU,
then you store it in a cache.
Next time you need to connect to same remote peer, you can lookup in the
cache to find a good candidate.
It would actually be good if we could do in a single socket verb a
bind_and_connect(fd, &source, &destination)
--
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