From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 15 20:31:36 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B92851 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:31:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124B9959 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:31:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hj3so3341583wib.0 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:31:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=PVBtUMzkgfUhebV5cyDKGw9HJuulErVwwOZWe1ojy+M=; b=0et63LPpwm6TmM7Y7lH60sbDJk7dFpAaQebvg2S+NXyHHv2TybLbAzjy077rcdGbLp D7LNImrc/uDpGJs1ILstFGRkkzpRSJT4k1q4wTO0vdL5cVIkm/D6+IBouUSshL0SLc+Y GbwofW3UtUQZIzQXi4uXIUxl1EST38zL/0FJ/VtRCc2Xiz+GqT8UfJ//XSd4lDVJnNaD F2k7wUO1i/vF797AhcygQ17R+2HIr/xL3LSSJIOq1Sai1T7ac6gqGxgcRJvPOdrX5KfQ wyMlw1BOh/vbgvhOqDH4fOstOukSPuJnzaDxkaApG7OXa9+E7h/4kMru5ahQrIMfdfyp wv2Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.185.148 with SMTP id fc20mr10246721wic.0.1373920295252; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.217.94.132 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:31:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51E455D5.2090403@mail.ru> References: <51E0E2AF.7090404@mail.ru> <51E44E2F.8060700@mail.ru> <51E455D5.2090403@mail.ru> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:31:35 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: R1ZMYLnnYBDrJLNlAiPcjGYD0m4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: SO_REUSEPORT: strange kernel balancer behaviour From: Adrian Chadd To: trafdev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Sepherosa Ziehau , freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:31:36 -0000 On 15 July 2013 13:04, trafdev wrote: > Yep I think it's wasting of resources, poll manager should somehow be > configured to update only one process/thread. > Anyone know how to do that? > Thanks. Well, the problem here is deciding which thread to throw the request at. If the threads are equally busy, you're ok. If the threads aren't equally busy, then just doing a round robin or hash may end up keeping one thread more busy than others, skewing the workload. I'm also interested in the whole CPU pinning of sockets to line it all up with multi-queue network cards and such. Hence why I'm starting down this path. -adrian