[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160324182435.GA7682@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 19:24:35 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Tolga Ceylan <tolga.ceylan@...il.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
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 11:20:49AM -0700, Tolga Ceylan wrote:
> 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.
Indeed that would help, I don't know where to start from for now.
> 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?
Knowing how picky Eric is about performance in such areas, I'm not
worried a single second about adopting something he recommends :-)
I just need to ensure it covers our users' needs. And maybe the
solution I mentionned in the other e-mail could work.
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists