[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALmu+SxF5dDEBwpk-R=V5DGZBed1rvjYGEJ+cU8ZhyAdLWshug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:20:49 -0700
From: Tolga Ceylan <tolga.ceylan@...il.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Craig Gallek <cgallek@...gle.com>,
Josh Snyder <josh@...e406.com>,
Aaron Conole <aconole@...heb.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: Add SO_REUSEPORT_LISTEN_OFF socket option as
drain mode
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> On 03/24/2016 06:26 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>> I completely agree with this, but I wonder if we now need a repository
>> of useful BPF modules. So in the case of implementing functionality
>> like in SO_REUSEPORT_LISTEN_OFF that might just become a common BPF
>> program we could direct people to use.
>
>
> Good point. There's tools/testing/selftests/net/ containing already
> reuseport
> BPF example, maybe it could be extended.
I would appreciate a conceptual description on how this would work
especially for a common scenario
as described by Willy. My initial impression was that a coordinator
(master) process takes this
responsibility to adjust BPF filters as children come and go.
Two popular software has similar use cases: nginx and haproxy. Another
concern is with the
introduction of BPF itself, should we expect a performance drop in
these applications?
Best Regards,
Tolga Ceylan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists