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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 29 Nov 2019 17:07:20 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        'Paolo Abeni' <>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <>
Cc:     'Marek Majkowski' <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        network dev <>,
        kernel-team <>
Subject: Re: epoll_wait() performance

On 11/28/19 2:17 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
>> Sent: 27 November 2019 17:47
> ...
>> A QUIC server handles hundred of thousands of ' UDP flows' all using only one UDP socket
>> per cpu.
>> This is really the only way to scale, and does not need kernel changes to efficiently
>> organize millions of UDP sockets (huge memory footprint even if we get right how
>> we manage them)
>> Given that UDP has no state, there is really no point trying to have one UDP
>> socket per flow, and having to deal with epoll()/poll() overhead.
> How can you do that when all the UDP flows have different destination port numbers?
> These are message flows not idempotent requests.
> I don't really want to collect the packets before they've been processed by IP.
> I could write a driver that uses kernel udp sockets to generate a single message queue
> than can be efficiently processed from userspace - but it is a faff compiling it for
> the systems kernel version.

Well if destinations ports are not under your control,
you also could use AF_PACKET sockets, no need for 'UDP sockets' to receive UDP traffic,
especially it the rate is small.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists