Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 19:38:07 +0100 From: Igor Mozolevsky <igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: Hackers freeBSD <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Daniel Janzon <janzon@gmail.com>, Dirk Engling <erdgeist@erdgeist.org> Subject: Re: Best practice for accepting TCP connections on multicore? Message-ID: <CADWvR2guSYMKEm2HkzXNVuO%2BVS6=_a9jFBmKcSE2BzjYfiaUrQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1402159374.20883.160.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <CAAGHsvDhaqQbwir5P%2BoaH_Qa8VZ0aj9A2SGrn%2B2shJMQ21B6Jw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1406070252270.21531@erdgeist.org> <CADWvR2gkeNaeVPizq_VubWhEHy3ywURJOdv9C=6PNybwYyFqRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmonm3aZr=kP293x90Am7VzWQQ65cTE8fiTZ6KAECegoZGQ@mail.gmail.com> <1402159374.20883.160.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7 June 2014 17:42, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2014-06-07 at 12:06 -0400, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > On 7 June 2014 10:19, Igor Mozolevsky <igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 7 June 2014 01:53, Dirk Engling <erdgeist@erdgeist.org> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2014, Daniel Janzon wrote: > > >> > > >> Is there any better way than doing the accept() call in one thread > and > > >>> then > > >>> dispatch it to a thread on another core with any user space method? > > >>> > > >> > > > See C10K problem [1]. > > > > > > > > > Why use accept() and not kevent()? You need to keep it portable? > > >> > > > > > > Has anyone rebutted the threads better than events paper[2] yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html > > > > > > 2. > > > > https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/hotos03/tech/full_papers/vonbehren/vonbehren.pdf > > > > Not likely; but that paper talks about a threading model that isn't > > currently in use in popular UNIX operating systems. It also compares a > > lightweight thread implementation with a lightweight server to an > > event driven system with worker threads that acted pretty badly, > > causing extremely bad memory use and context switching. > > > > We've all gotten better at programming since then. > > Yeah, when I glanced at the link and saw it was a cite of a 2003 paper, > my gut reaction was "Yeah, it has been rebutted by 11 years of everyone > just getting on with their lives and evolving absolutely everything that > was tested into something completely different now." > I can't possibly argue with that sort of scientific method, but back in 2008, someone did some stuff with Java and got interesting results[1]. 1. http://www.mailinator.com/tymaPaulMultithreaded.pdf -- Igor M.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADWvR2guSYMKEm2HkzXNVuO%2BVS6=_a9jFBmKcSE2BzjYfiaUrQ>