Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753268Ab2FRX1t (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:27:49 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:23268 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751464Ab2FRX1s (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:27:48 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="181812340" From: Andi Kleen To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Li Yu , Changli Gao , Linux Netdev List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , davidel@xmailserver.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce to batch variants of accept() and epoll_ctl() syscall References: <4FDAB652.6070201@gmail.com> <4FDACA26.70004@gmail.com> <1339750318.7491.70.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:27:47 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1339750318.7491.70.camel@edumazet-glaptop> (Eric Dumazet's message of "Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:51:58 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 629 Lines: 18 Eric Dumazet writes: > > I believe accept() is the problem here, because it contends with the > softirq processing the tcp session handshake. The MOSBENCH people some time ago did a per CPU accept queue. This is probably overkill, but there are clearly some scaling problems here with enough cores. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/